text:
Is there a situation or way that a sabotage run is a good idea in TI:3?
I have often considered using the optional rule of a sabotage run on a War Sun, but have always decided it would be a waste of fighters. I was wondering if there exists a situation when you might want to do a sabotage run?
Quoted from the rule book:

Game option: Sabotage Runs
Although the mighty War Sun unit is the undisputed king of space, history has shown that such hubris of creation often hides a fatal flaw that can be exploited by the smallest of spacecraft.
When using this game option, Fighter units have adesperate chance of a pre-Space Battle strike at an enemy War Sun in the contested system. This desperate attack is called the “sabotage run.”
Announce the Run
  A sabotage run takes place before an actual Space Battle begins, immediately after any Destroyer Anti-Fighter Barrage.
Both players (attacker first) may announce that they are making a Sabotage run against an enemy War Sun in the battle (if no War Sun is present among the enemy units, a player cannot undertake a sabotage run).
If both players have War Suns, the attacker should resolve his sabotage run first, followed by the defender.
After announcing a sabotage run, a player must commit a number of Fighter units to the dangerous task. After a number of Fighters have been committed, the sabotage run is executed over two rounds of die rolls.
1) The Outer Defenses
  Roll a die for every Fighter committed to the sabotage run. On an unmodified result of 9 or 10, the Fighter makes it through the outer defenses of the War Sun. All other results destroy the Fighter unit, which receives no return fire.
2) The Inner Defenses
  For every Fighter unit that made it past the outer defenses of the War Sun, roll another die (one at a time). If the fighter rolls an unmodified result of 10, the sabotage run is successful and the War Sun is immediately destroyed. Such a destroyed War Sun receives no return fire. All other die results instantly destroy the Fighter unit, which receives no return fire.
Surviving Fighter units are able to participate in the subsequent Space Battle. An unharmed War Sun is able to participate in the Space Battle with no ill effects.
Should an opponent have two War Sun units, a player is allowed to make a sabotage run against both units by dividing his committed Fighters into two separate pools. With each of these pools attacking one specific War Sun, simply resolve each separate sabotage run, one at a time

Situation:
Hostile force:  1 carrier, 10 fighters, 4 cruisers, 1 war sun, 1 ground force
Defending force:  1 carrier, 6 fighters, 1 cruiser, with 3 ground forces defending the planet.
The planet in question is highly valuable, and this is the final turn (or losing it will cost you the ability to gain VPs this turn).
In this situation, you are unable to destroy the war sun in straight combat, and if it lives to the end of the battle, it will single-handedly destroy all defending ground forces while keeping the lone ground force secure for the invasion.  On the flip side, should the war sun be destroyed, then the invasion will be unsuccessful this turn (1v3 odds) excepting extreme luck bias.  Therefore, the #1 priority for this battle is the destruction of the war sun - the other massive segment of the fleet is irrelevant.
Strafing run, GO!

This is actually a very good point. The sabotage run allows you to specifically target the War Sun.

Maybe it helps if you imagine how hard you will laugh when one actually gets through!
Not doing the most logical/sensible action can be a lot of fun, even if it costs some fighters (Which are cheap anyway).
Isn't there a technology upgrade that increases the chances of a successful sabotage run?

It's pretty unlikely that a sabotage run will ever be the most strategically sensible thing to do.
However, there could be several occasions when it'd be a fun thing to do. Given how it's a blatant Star Wars reference, it's a good opportunity to throw around movie quotes. (In case anyone didn't realise: the War Sun is an Expy of the Death Star.)
And in the one time in 50 that it works, then it'll make for a very memorable occasion, which is a great part of a fun gaming experience.

Actually, there is an (unlikely) situation when the sabotage run is strategically sensible: When the fighters are of no value to you, you might as well throw them away on the off-chance.  This could happen if you're definitely about to lose the carriers/fighter bases, or if the war sun's about to do something that will lose you the game - you might as well go for the long shot.  (Never seen a situation where it makes sense happen though.  But we always allow the optional rule.  Many Star Wars fans in our group.)

Don't you have a higher chance of just scoring two hits on the warsun? (I didn't do the math)

@Matthijs: Not if you only have one fighter, you don't. Also, the sabotage run, if successful, will stop the war sun from firing at all - hypothetically this might be better, although it's hard to imagine a likely scenario where that's more important than better odds of destroying it.

Any time when you are likely to just get smoked in combat. Say you have a carrier with just a couple of fighters vs the force mentioned above. You will be lucky indeed to even kill all of the cannon fodder to start to damage the Warsun. And you would also have to count on unlucky rolls from the opposing fleet to get to that point as well.
You have a 2% chance on the sabotage run per committed fighter which may be   better odds than surviving enough rounds of combat to kill his fleet and score 2 hits on the Warsun.


text:
What happens if an action card makes another queued action card impossible?
Last game, the situation arose where I scored a hit on a dreadnaught and played Direct Hit!. My brother then quickly grabbed his Emergency Repairs card.
Direct Hit! reads:

Play: "Immediately after the ship has been damaged in a Space Battle in which you participate."

Emergency Repairs reads:

Play: "At any time"

So this resulted in an argument: "Direct Hit! means that the hit was a kill shot so you can't do Emergency Repair" vs "I repaired first, so you can't play Direct Hit!".
After consulting the rules we found out that you always have to announce that you are going to play a card. Then other people can announce they also want to play a card. Then the cards are resolved in order of play.
So what would have happened in our situation if both action cards had been announced? If either is played first, the other cannot be played any more.
Is the action card then discarded? Does it go back into the player's hand? Does the player have to reveal what it was? If not, can he just decide not to play it any more even though it would still be possible (i.e. to repair/direct hit another ship)?

My word here is by no means final—there is no clear answer to your question that I can find—but I have a good argument for resolving your case based on the existing rules, FAQ, and card text.
There is no rule that states that Emergency Repairs cannot be played in an action cycle began by a player announcing a card that turns out to be a Direct Hit!.
(The following is worth mentioning: Sabotage—another action with ‘immediately’ in the Play text is explicitly said to not be announced, which would mean there is no cycle of actions played by other players, as that text only takes effect after an action is announced. It would seem ideal that other immediate Action Cards be given a similar non–announced status, but no one asked me.)
The use of ‘immediately’ in the Play text of Direct Hit! implies that it happens before any other actions could possibly be announced— except for others with the same same trigger in its Play block. The closest thing a player being attacked has to Direct Hit! is Recheck, which instead reacts ‘immediately’ to the die roll— before the damage has been inflicted.
I believe there is a reason for the lack of contradictory immediate actions that are triggered by the same state. The only exception is the pre–combat phase, and the FAQ has a solution for resolving those actions. (Rulebook effects are treated here as actions, as well— which demonstrates that immediate effects on Action Cards are treated with the same priority as immediate rulebook effects are.)
So… if we got to the situation where Emergency Repairs is played in an action cycle began with the announcing of an Action Card that turned out to be a Direct Hit!, it would still resolve.
Emergency Repairs does not target a ship or fleet, but rather the system that it resides in (the targeting text is simply “Choose a system”). Other ships (if any) in the system, for example, would still be repaired. You could technically play it on a system you have no ships on, as it does not require you to have any ships in said system. (It has not received an erratum which requires presence like Direct Hit! has.)
It would be possible to play Emergency Repairs in an action cycle started by a Direct Hit!, and then use Sabotage on the Direct Hit!, though…

As I read the rules, it's pretty straight forward.
Your brother is not allowed to simply play an action card. Neither are you.
You must announce that you intend to use an action card. If anybody wants to do the same, they announce it as well. Then the cards are being resolved in turn order. The one with the smallest number (Initiative, Diplomacy...) resolves first.
If you have the smallest number the dreadnought is destroyed. Your brother's Emergency Repairs is discarded.
If your brother has the smallest number the dreadnought is repaired. Your Direct Hit is discarded.

Good find. This is described on p23 of the TI3 rule book. However, I can't find anything saying the Direct Hit or Emergency Repairs are discarded: can't they simply be considered unplayed, and the owner keeps them?

As I mentioned in the question, we already read the part in the rules about which card gets to be played. The confusion is about what happens to the one that doesn't get played. Like Jonathan Hobbs said, I don't see where it says the card should be discarded.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it a good idea in TI:3 to play with fixed alliances?
Whenever we play TI:3, we play free-for-all. Of course, during play you can make agreements with fellow players whom you are still free to backstab later. I was thinking about playing with fixed teams, like 3 vs 3, just to try it out. The problem is that my buddies have never agreed to it.
So now I was wondering: has anyone else has ever done this? And did it work out or not?

There are games better suited for 3v3 scenarios, if you'd like recommendations.

Never tried it, and I think that making and breaking alliances is a big part of the game. The fact that there can be only one winner keeps everyone on their toes!
How would you resolve secret objectives? Will you still go for the victory point path or would you try galaxy domination?

There are indeed a few issues to be worked out. For victory, you could say control x% of the galaxy. Like the Supremacy or Domination objectives. For the rest, I think it's not a good idea to play with the other objectives. Because then you would have to manage your team too much as in "Ok, this turn you get Mecatol Rex and then next turn I will take it and...". If you let a team achieve an objective as a team then most of them are too easy "I control 10 planets outside my home system" or "I have 9 technology advances".

I would just like to add another reason why it's probably not a good idea.. Coordinating everything between the teams would be so benificial that it would become more of a 1v1 where all players on one team agree on every move each player takes.

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

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


text:
Reducing the Imperial strategy's power in Twilight Imperium
I've played Twilight Imperium (3rd edition) a couple times with friends now, and we keep noticing the same thing: no amount of fancy maneuvering, planet conquest, etc. gets people enough victory points to overcome the Imperial strategy card:

The 2 points from that card are massive, to the point where you can't afford to choose a different strategy card if that one is in the deck on your turn, or you almost certainly won't end up winning the game. Is there a way to deal with that? Are there any house rules that weaken it without messing up the game (e.g. only receiving 1 VP)? Or modifying some other part of the game such that the 2 VPs from Imperial aren't as game-deciding?

This really makes me wish I'd played Twilight Imperium, as it's the sort of question I really love getting my teeth into.  But alas, I haven't!  A quick scout around the internet suggests that there may be expansions that improve the game balance from the basic set.  But I couldn't tell you if that is actually true!

@the I've heard rumors of an "Imperial II" card that tries to fix it; I've not played with it or read much about it, but I'm hoping more for fixes that don't require other expansions if possible

Tynam's answer describes Imperial II.

"Imperial" is Twilight Imperium's biggest design flaw (IMO, of course).  As you'll typically get the card about twice in a game, and 2 vps is a winning margin in almost all circumstances, it makes the mid/endgame entirely about being the first person to grab Imperial for a second time.  In turn, this forces choice of card 1 to get the initiative whenever possible, so you can take "Imperial".  Which eliminates a lot of the interest provided by the actual strategies.
Your opinion is widespread, and the official Twilight Imperium variants FAQ has an "Ancient Throne" variant designed to deal with this problem.  Play with the "Age of Empire" variant in the rulebook (i.e. face-up Objective cards), and replace the primary ability of "Imperial" with:

Imperial Claim
Choose either a) or b).
a) If you control Mecatol Rex, immediately gain 1 victory point. Also, regardless of your control of Mecatol Rex, during the upcoming Status Phase, you may qualify for any
number of Public Objective Cards (but must still meet the individually stated requirements of each card).
b) You may choose to execute the secondary ability of the Imperial Strategy Card (at no cost). No other player may execute this secondary ability this game round.

Play the secondary as normal.
This became such a popular solution that they printed an "Imperial II" card with this wording in the "Shattered Empire" expansion.
The expansion also contains a more complex solution: It has a variant completely-different set of strategy cards for an alternate style of play; obviously this avoids the problem entirely.

Wow! I am SO going to try this in my next game of TI! I am glad I'm not the only one who thought this was broken!

This alternative requires the variant rule that all objectives be visible at the start of the game.  These are official rules, btw, provided by the Shattered Empire expansion.

As @Tynam mentions, the Shattered Empire expansion fixes this for 3rd Edition.
This is also fixed in 4th edition.   The 4th edition Imperial card works like the Imperial II card from 3rd Edition; the operative piece reads:

Gain 1 victory point if you control Mecatol Rex; otherwise draw 1 secret objective

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


text:
TI3 - Why go for Spec Ops Training?
In Twilight Imperium, the Federation of Sol have been given this as their secondary race tech:

Spec Ops Training (5)  Each time you roll a 1 during Invasion Combat,
  you  may reroll the die. You must use the second result.

Notice that this is not the same as e.g. +1 to all Ground Forces combat rolls. With a smashing price of 5 additional resources, I am looking for the reason why this race tech is even in the game...
I have some questions to add to this:

It's not worded for combat rolls specifically. Does this apply to Gen Synthesis and Dacxive Animators rolls too (since Federation of Sol seem to be taking good care of their ground forces)?
Does this apply to Mechanized Units?
Will this apply to Fighters as well, when Sol gains the Graviton Negator tech?

If it's only half a +1 to Ground Forces, why would anyone buy it?

The consensus seems to be that while this tech is unimpressive, Sol is strong enough in other departments to make up for it.  So it's "even in the game" for balance purposes, really, rather than because it's a desirable power...

In response to your three sub-questions and adhering strictly to rules as written (RAW):
Ad 1: No, you would not get the bonus for these two techs (Gen Synthesis and Dacxive Animators) as they both happen at the end of invasion combat which is outside the scope of the wording on the card.
Ad 2 and 3: Since the card does not state that it only provides its ability to ground forces but rather is a universal rule during invasion combat, I would say, yes it applies to both Mech units and Fighters with Graviton Negators since these are rolls that happen during invasion combat.

Dacxive Animators happens at the end of combat but Gen Synthesis happens at the end of each round of invasion combat. Thus, it's possible that Special Ops training would work with Gen Synthesis.


text:
Is Felray's ability global or local?
This lovely lady is Felrey, a mercenary from the new expansion for Twilight Imperium 3rd edition.

She's rather fast, but has limited evasion.
The question surrounds her special ability. Some of the mercs have global abilities:

The cost of technologic advancements is reduced by 1.

and others have local abilities:

When participating in a combat, assign one hit to an enemy fighter or
  ground force.

But this one clearly says:

At the start of a battle, draw 1 Action Card.

Does that mean that Felrey does not need to be a participant in that battle?
Mercs are very neat, and battle does not come cheap in any case. I haven't seen any errata or FAQ covering this, and if one goes with "rules as written", it seems to get an action card at the beginning of every battle, making this lady an interesting leech.
On the other hand, some players argue it as an "obvious thing" that she has to participate herself. Who is right?

Felrey's ability will only trigger when she is present in the combat.
From the section on P12 of the Shards of the Throne expansion rulebook "Using Mercenaries In Battle":

Any Mercenary abilities that work during battle may only be used if
  the Mercenary is participating in the Space Battle or  Invasion
  Combat.

You could argue that "at the start of a battle" should not technically count as "during a battle" I suppose, but that sounds like excessive rules-lawyering to me!


text:
Best method for evenly distributing epidemic cards in Pandemic setup?
The rules for Pandemic call for shuffling the Player deck and distributing the initial cards to each player.  The remaining 50 or so cards are then seeded with epidemic cards by this rule:

Divide the remaining Player cards into a number of piles according to how diﬃcult you’d like to make the game. Make the piles as equal in size as is possible.
Shuﬄe an Epidemic card into each pile. Stack the piles on top of each other to form the Player Draw Pile. (If the piles aren’t exactly the same size, stack them so that the larger piles are above the smaller piles.) Put any excess Epidemic cards back into the box.

In practice this is the longest setup step for a game which already has a substantial setup phase.  Does anyone have any tips or tricks for getting this done faster?

I've done this in the past, and it tends to work well.
Roughly divide the piles into the # of Epidemics you want (just eyeball the piles, don't count).  Stick an Epidemic card at the bottom of each pile.  Stack the piles.
This makes each epidemic come up fairly predictably, which helps even out the randomness of the game, but since the piles themselves are rough, it doesn't make it exactly predictable.
Plus, it avoids the silliness of the occasional double-epidemic, which more often than not makes the game easier instead of harder.

I like this option. I'll have to try it out the next time I play. However, I think I would add a cut of the deck after combining the piles. That way you don't know that the first epidemic is not near the top. It does open up the possibility of a back-to-back epidemic, though.

@Todd actually since the epidemic card will never be the top card, a normal cut will keep the distribution (no doubles) while randomizing the very first.  Good idea!

@Neal Oh yeah, good point. I was thinking wrong. That makes it better.

I dislike this approach as it makes epidemics too predictable. Epidemics are not supposed to be this predictable.

Agree with Matt; additionally at the bottom makes the game the easiest possible.  I like the cut method or maybe alternate top/bottom (or all top, from easiest to hardest;D).

Multithread! While one player handles the Player cards, another handles the Epidemic cards and the starting diseases.
Also, it's a little faster to set up the Player cards if you calculate the cards per pile before you get going, letting you deal out the piles one-at-a-time.

We combine dealing and making the piles.  Deal a round of cards, deal a couple into each pile, iterate.  Then shuffle each pile with an epidemic.  Meanwhile, another player shuffles the infection deck and sets up the initial infections.
If we're playing with new(ish) players we have the most-experienced players do the setup so the less-experienced have more time to study their initial cards and the board.

Old question, but as I'm setting up, I lay out the epidemic cards I am using (4, 5, whatever) and once I've dealt the user cards, I continue to deal out the rest of the cards on top of the epidemic cards, thus giving me about equal stacks of cards with one epidemic at the bottom of each stack.  I then put the bottom card (the epidemic) in the middle.  If I'm not playing with my kids or beginners, I'll then shuffle each stack (usually using the top / bottom / top / bottom pattern a few times to truly mix everything up).
The advantage of dealing out a card at a time to the piles is that it helps shuffle the deck of cards one more time, because you really want these cards to come out even, yet you tend to have groups of cards in the same color from the last time you played, so it helps make the game a bit more even.


text:
Setup for more than 4 players in Dominion?
We have the base Dominion set along with the Alchemy and Prosperity expansions. The rules cover 2-4 players, but elsewhere it implies that up to 6 players are allowed with expansions. Nowhere we could find does it explain if 5 or 6 players have a different setup or end game conditions.
Do you need a different setup for 5 - 6 players in Dominion? I get the impression that adding the Colony and Platinum is required, but not sure if the starting cards or end conditions change. Or is it a different expansion that allows for 5 - 6 players?
I am open to "official rules" and "recommended rules."

Don't forget that the number of Curses in play should be (n-1) * 10, where n is the number of players.

The official rules for 5-6 players in Dominion is outlined in the Dominion: Intrigue rulebook, as it requires the extra treasure and Province cards included with that expansion.

To set up for 5 or 6 players, combine the Treasure cards from Dominion and Dominion: Intrigue. Use 15 Provinces in the Supply for a 5-player game and 18 Provinces in the Supply for a 6-player game. All other Victory card piles (Estates, Duchies, and Victory Kingdom cards) remain at 12 cards per pile. Use 40 Curse cards for a 5-player game and 50 Curse cards for a 6-player game.
In a 5 or 6 player game, the game ends at the end of any player’s turn when one of two conditions is met: the Supply pile of Province cards is empty OR any 4 Supply piles are empty.

I would recommend using these rules with proxy cards for the extra treasures, Provinces and Curses if you don't have the Intrigue expansion.

@TheChaz & Ghoppe: Thanks to both of you for the speedy answers. I suspected it was Intrigue that added 5-6 players. I'll look at picking that one up or making some proxies. So just need more Province and Curse cards? No more Gold?

@JimMcKeeth The rules say combine the Treasure cards. So, I suppose that means technically you'd double the Copper, Silver, and Gold.

IMO it works better if you ALSO add extra Duchy cards (match the number of provinces) AND add an extra kingdom pile per player over 4.

@ChrisDodd do you also modify the game-end conditions (e.g. 4 piles run out for 5 players?)

Should there also be 15/18 colonies in a 5/6 player colony game?

@KarlKnechtel Yes, the number of Colonies should equal the number of Provinces.

So it requires Intrigue 1st edition as 2nd does not have the additional base cards.

I just got the second edition big box: the intrigue rules do not have that section above (assumedly because as Bence says they don't specifically include extra base cards) however the big box DOES include extra base cards (says so on the box) however it doesn't seem to be written anywhere how to use them...

Neither Colony nor Platinum are required for 5-6 player. (Neither of them are in Intrigue, either.)
From the Intrigue Rules PDF:

The following are rules for a single game accommodating 5 or 6 players. Please note
  that there will be increased downtime with 5 or 6 players, so this is not recommended
  for new players.
To set up for 5 or 6 players, combine the Treasure cards from Dominion and Dominion:
  Intrigue. Use 15 Provinces in the Supply for a 5-player game and 18 Provinces in the
  Supply for a 6-player game. All other Victory card piles (Estates, Duchies, and Victory
  Kingdom cards) remain at 12 cards per pile. Use 40 Curse cards for a 5-player game and
  50 Curse cards for a 6-player game.
In a 5 or 6 player game, the game ends at the end of any player’s turn when one of two
  conditions is met: the Supply pile of Province cards is empty OR any 4 Supply piles are
  empty

The designer's advice for 7-8 players is to run two separate tables of 3-4p
The full intrigue rules are available at
http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/45425/dominion-intrigue-rules-english-pdf

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


text:
How many lands do I need for a Commander deck?
A Commander deck consists of 100 unique cards, of which one is designated as the Commander and must be either a Legendary Creature or an allowed Planeswalker.  I'm still very unfamiliar with this format.  How would you go about figuring out the number of lands to put into your commander deck?

I always start with 38 mana producing lands and 6 mana producing artifacts then tweak from there.

I usually go with 40 lands -1 land for each 2 non-land mana sources as a base rule.

Because of the slower pace of play in EDH/Commander, it isn't as drastically important to hit 5-6 land drops in 5-6 turns.  In addition, the number of "mana rocks" (mana-generating artifacts) and dual lands/mana filtering/land fetch cards are usually higher.
Considering that, the 40% lands rule is still fairly close to normal (lightened obviously for the reasons above).  I've run 34-36 land decks successfully, but usually you see 37-40 with some of the previously mentioned accelerators.
Abnormal decks (with huge numbers of accelerators) will run as few as 32 lands (the equivalent of running about 13 in a 40-card limited deck), but I'd recommend starting around 40 and cutting around one land per three accelerators (if you're trying to cut land, and not running very high-cost spells).
Do also remember that running fewer lands with more mana rocks leaves you open to blowouts when someone wipes artifacts with Austere Command, Merciless Eviction, Shatterstorm/Creeping Corrosion, etc. - you don't want to be stuck on four lands when your couple of Signets and Thran Dynamo get wiped.
As an example, the Devour for Power Commander deck shipped with 40 lands and four mana-generating artifacts, but it is fairly heavy on costs.

I have a large number of accelerators, and lots of draw, and some of the lands are 2-mana lands, and there are a bunch of mana rocks. With all of that, I can run only 29 land and be just fine most games. Lots of card-draw means I can hit my drop every turn.

"Abnormal decks..." -- there are also decks which are abnormal in the opposite direction, such as Azusa with ~50 lands, or Child of Alara lands.dek with 70+ lands.

May want to mention Mass Land destruction effects as a reason to run Additional Mana Rocks. There's an aspect of risk management to Mana Rocks vs Lands, in this mass destruction for both is available and frequently played.

This is actually a more complicated question than it sounds. There's a lot of things that go into deciding how much land goes into a deck, the general rule for minimum is 1/3 of the deck, so in EDH that would be 32 cards, but that is a pretty bare minimum and most decks will need more than that. Lets go over the things that determine how much you'll need one at a time.
Colors
The more colors you have in a deck, the more land that deck will need - a mono color deck doesn't need specific lands to play their spells, my Marrow-Gnawer () can get away with a lot less land than my Nekusar, the Mindrazer (), which can get away with less than my General Tazri (). This is mostly because you need to get your colors on the field sooner, and the more lands that can make each color, the more likely you are to do this. It's always a bad feeling to never hit that last color and have a hand full of things you can't cast. Lands that can tap for multiple, or any color blunt this, but have downsides, and are always one Ruination or Blood Moon away from keeping you out of the game for good.
With a mono color deck, you will be getting all of your colors usually on your first turn, with 3 colors usually takes 5 or so mana generating cards and in all 5 colors you can still be waiting for that last color sometimes after a dozen lands are already out.
There are some exceptions to this, for instance I have a Reaper King () deck that most cards are artifacts and don't care about the colors on the field, letting me trim some land from what would normally need to be more land heavy to support all 5 colors.
Card cost
What's the average cost of your spells? How many X cost spells and abilities do you have? If your deck doesn't need much mana to run, missing land drops won't be as big of a problem, if you're playing something like Dragons which tend to be expensive, you'll need to get your mana base set up pretty quickly and can't afford to miss as many land drops too early on.
Yes EDH is a slower format, but having to come from behind and catchup to your opponents does put you at a disadvantage when they play spells and you can't.
Non-land mana sources
Land isn't the only source of mana you can have in your deck - Elves can get by on less actual mana than some other deck types because so many elves themselves can tap for mana, both accelerating your deck and making more land coming less desirable or useful. Creatures are, however, easy to destroy, particularly as many of the mana producing ones have low toughness like Birds of Paradise or Llanowar Elves.
Artifacts that produce mana are common too, there's no single card in more EDH decks than Sol Ring, some of the moxes and medallions can be pretty helpful too. These like creatures are easier to destroy than lands, and aren't a replacement for them. The medallions lose some of that usefulness pretty quickly as more colors are added, it's not usually worth 5 slots in a  deck, but fit very nicely into a deck with only one or two colors.
Other Ways to Play
Paying the cost of a card isn't the only way to play it, and if your deck uses one of these strategies you won't need as many land on the field at once. Jodah, Archmage Eternal () makes every spell you cast able to be played for , Kaalia of the Vast () lets you cheat in Angels, Demons and Dragons whenever she attacks, and there's always cards like Elvish Piper and Quicksilver Amulet. Reanimator is another option, getting cards in your graveyard so you can Reanimate them later using cheaper spells and abilities reduces the cost to actually play a deck, and thus the land base you need to build up.
General Strategy
How are you planning to play your game? Aggro isn't the strongest in EDH but there are ways to make it work, and that needs to have a lot of mana, fast. Control too needs to get it's mana base stable and early so it can afford to hold those counter and removal spells to use when things start happening. Other decks can afford to build up a bit slower, unless it's forced EDH is a slow format after all, the faster you want to act in the game, the more land you likely need to do it.
Conclusion
There's no one solution, generally you'll want somewhere between a third and half of your deck to make mana, and most of that will likely be from land. Even if you are running Elves with mana rocks, you need the land first to play the elves, to play the Sol Ring, before the non land mana engine takes over, and you can't rely on drawing enough land to start your game if you're running only 20 in the deck.

It depends on your deck, and the pace you want to play. Are you trying to turn 3-5 combo out the table, are you trying to use politics and hug the table only to backstab your allies an route to victory, or are you a power gamer trying to drop the fattest fatties and smash your way to victory. Plenty of strategies in edh and as such it is color identity of your commander dependent, cmc of your cards dependent, and desired pace dependent. In a trying to combo out asap deck I run limited lands around 24 lands with mana rocks galore and then tutor and my 2 or 3 ways to combo out. The rest of the deck is removal so if my strategy slips to turn 4 or 5 I'm able to defend myself from table politics. If I'm just casually playing I run about 40ish lands and some rocks as land destruction is a thing aforementioned in the thread. So for decks in between these extremes you have to just kind of play it by ear. Build it play test and tweak based off hour results. Also try an play test against as many play groups as possible. I go to 5 different shops for drafts, deals, and of course edh and you'd be amazed how many tables are just a few people playing edh for fun that will welcome you to come test your deck against them. Also if you're gonna go for the atraxa, kaalia, and other obvious hate generals don't forget to build up protections in your deck and don't get mad if you get aimed.


text:
How can I speed up the setup of Eclipse?
I think I got everything separated and packed pretty well (including the upgrade tiles), but what's really taking a long time during setup is the cubes.
Is there a way to set it up faster for players? It's also a drag for new players, gives them a bad first impression...

Set it up before your players arrive?

I'm really looking forward to BigDaddy's Eclipse for iPad

@ire_and_curses no, when they're already here, just give them quicker setup time... The players need to decide on their race first, right?

@ghoppe don't you think it kinda hinders the whole "meet with your friends and play" concept of tabletop games though? :)

@AviadBenDov I can still meet with my friends, hang out on the sofa and pass-and-play. No huge table and setup required! :)

@ghoppe pros and cons to it though... I somehow prefer the big table, the plastic pieces, and even more importantly, to get away from screen time.. :)

I had my friends text me their colors for the first game, and setup their pieces ahead of time. Sure, the races are asymmetrical, but we all learned together so it wasn't a huge deal.

Honestly, they don't have to be exactly in the right place or at the right angle; just slide them into roughly the right places in threes with three fingers and you'll be set up in no time.

For the cubes, dump them out, in approximately the right spots; slide most of them over to the left, then make sure the 3 right-most cubes for each of tech/resources/money are in the right spots. Let people sort the rest when it's not their turn.
That said, I'd love to have boards that had recesses for all of the cubes/discs so they moved around less.

So you suggest to just let them handle it during the game itself on the first turn, when they're not playing?

Yes sir. Alternatively, if they haven't played before it gives them something relatively mindless to do while you explain the game.

yeah, that's sort of what I did last time, while they were organising the cubes I explained the rules of the game.

(I am waiting to see if there are other answers, if there are none I'll mark yours as the answer.)

@aslum Many years later, the second edition of Eclipse gives you exactly what you want.

I've found through my plays of Eclipse that there are 4 things you can do to speed up setup:
1) Take the bags where you put the ships in for each player. Add 3 colony ships, the storage markers, the starbases, all cubes and disks. You'll have a bag for each player with all the stuff they need to setup their player board.
2) Buy a 'bead storage box'. Craft section of Michaels or Walmart. Put your sorted upgrades in here. Setting up the supply board is as simple as taking the lid off of this box and placing technology tiles.
3) Buy some Population Trays off the internet. These are specifically for eclipse. You can buy the ones with lids and that will let you store all the cubes for a given player in the tray. Setting up a player board is as simple as opening the lid and dumping the contents of their bag next to the board.
4) Have all other components pre-sorted and bagged seperately.
It takes < 5 minutes to go from putting the box on the table to making my first action with this setup.
Population Trays: http://www.beklaser.com/en/6-eclipse

Those population trays are neat!

Our group just uses the little plastic bags that come with the game and put everything for one player to start in one of them. We have the starting hex, the ships, the populations cubes, etc. all in the bag. We only set up the rightmost population cube. We can get started in as little as 5 minutes.


text:
Do the Saar need to wait a whole round to build a Space Dock?
Most races in Twilight Imperium need to wait a whole round in order to build a Space Dock from the moment they take control of a system, that is because of the following requirement in the rules (emphasis mine):

The active player must have controlled the planet for the entire
  current round. Thus, it is not possible to build a Space Dock on a
  planet that has just been acquired during the current round.

However, the Saar do not build their Space Docks on planets, as specified on their racial sheet. So, can they build a Space Dock wherever they want immediately as they control a system, or do they need to wait a round like all other races?

From page 10 of the Twilight Imperium FAQ (version 2.5):

Q: What are the restrictions for building a Saar Space Dock?
A: The player must control 1 planet in the system per space dock he wishes to
  build. Trade stations do not count towards this restriction.

From this the Saar need to have control of a planet, so I would think that why the rule you quoted on needing to have controlled the planet for the entire round would apply.

So thematically.... I guess they build it on the planet and launch it? OK, I guess I got my answer. Missed that FAQ..


text:
Do bombardment counts for "invading planets"?
The rules specify that:

Ground Forces destroyed by bombardment are removed immediately, do not receive return fire, and will not participate in the upcoming Invasion Combat.

However, some political cards, action cards and special abilities refer to "When invading a planet with a Ground Force on it". So, if one invades a planet with Ground Forces on it, bombards them to death and then have a successful invasion, does that count for "when invading a planet with Ground Forces on it"?
(Sure, the Ground Forces did not count for the invasion combat, but they might count for the invasion itself as a whole..?)

"Some cards and abilities" you might want to list the names of those cards/abilities. The rules might differ in how bombardment and destroyed ground forces are handled. I.e. Dacxive Animator and Mechanized Units) Are you asking to see if the rules are consistent among cards/abilities or did you have a specific example in mind?

Yes, the rules (pg. 12) refer to the term "invasion" as:

Hostile Landing (also called an "Invasion"): A player lands units on a planet containing one or more of an enemy player's Ground Force units. This will result in an Invasion Combat during the Invasion Combat step.
If a player lands units on a planet that is controlled by an opponent, but does not contain any enemy Ground Forces, the planet falls without resistance.

There are only three types of landings, Friendly, Neutral, or Hostile ("Invasion").

You can also see page 27, Ground Forces, under Controlling a Planet.

Great, that's what I was looking for!

I think that it would count. I agree that the invasion Combat is simply a part of the action of invasion and that the Ground Forces exist after the invasion has begun.
I think that this is partly supported by the FAQ (page 5):

Q: Is landing on a neutral planet considered an invasion for the purposes of “Imperial Peace”?
A: Yes. Planetary landings on neutral planets are considered invasions
  for the purposes of Action and Political Cards.

This answer shows that invasions still count even when invasion combat does not occur.

I agree that an "invasion" occurs, but is it considered "invasion with a ground force on the planet?" I would assume it does, but can we try to get a clearer ruling on that?


text:
Deep Space cannons: how many times can they shoot?
In Twilight Imperium 3rd ed you may get a technology advance that lets your PDS fire to a system adjacent to the one that contains them: The Deep Space Cannons.
The rules of firing in their same system stand but there is one extra scenario not described in the rules:

If the enemy is at distance 2 and moves to an adjacent system, passing through an adjacent system  will the PDS fire once or twice? (Meaning, will they fire once the enemy enters the first adjacent system and once more once the enemy reaches the destination adjacent system?)

Of course, what if the enemy is moving to the system that contains the PDS, would they shoot twice?

I'm not claiming an authoritative answer, but when playing recently the rule we followed is the activation rule -- the adjacent PDS may fire into a system that has been activated. So, in your scenario, the PDS would fire only one time.
From the TI3 Rule book (page 29):

When a player activates a system in range of an
  enemy PDS unit, the owners of any enemy PDS units
  in range may, after the movement step of the
  Activation Sequence, fire once per PDS at any units
  in the system owned by the activating player. Note
  that when firing your PDS units during another player's
  activation, you may only fire at the units controlled
  by the activating player. It is thus not possible
  to draw third party PDS fire at an enemy fleet by simply
  activating its system from afar.

Although I haven't sussed this out with my gaming group, I imagine a transfer action would invoke two opportunities for an adjacent PDS if the system holding the PDS is adjacent to both transfer-action-activated systems.


text:
If I play an action card and it is sabotaged, can I take another action?
If I play an action card as an action and another player plays sabotage on it, can I take another action or is my action considered taken already?

From the FAQ here:
http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight%20Imperium%203/ti3faq2-2-4.pdf

Q: Is an Action Card that has been sabotaged considered played?
A:
No. For example, a “play as an action” Action Card that is  sabotaged
does not use up its owner’s action.

So yes, you should be able to play another action.


text:
In vanilla Twilight Imperium 3rd ed., should you always take Imperial if it's available?
Sometimes, when we're playing Twilight Imperium, if we're in a tight spot or a position to advance, our play group tends to pick the strategy that will help their board position (for instance, Diplomacy) over an available Imperial, but this doesn't necessarily seem optimal.  You do get an advantage on the board, however, those two victory points are now someone else's.  Should you always take Imperial if you can, even if it seems like another strategy will help you more on the board?

For straight Twilight Imperium, unless you are at a guaranteed win, your first two choices are Imperial, followed by Initiative. If you don't take either of those, then you'll essentiall get skipped over the circle and be two points behind.

I agree, though you really should just buy the Shattered Empire expansion. It eliminates the wretched imperial card mechanic and improves the gameplay exponentially.

Even if you don't buy Shattered Empire, eliminate the wretched Imperial mechanic.  It's utterly broken in many ways, primarily because your guess in the question is completely correct.  They published the infinitely better Imperial II in the variants FAQ (http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight%20Imperium%203/ti3variant.pdf) before SE even came out, so it's legal even without the expansion.


text:
If an action card turns a planet neutral, are the space docks and PDS units on it destroyed?
If an opponent plays a card such as Local Unrest and targets my last ground force on the planet, that planet is turned neutral.  When that happens, do I lose any PDS's and Space Docks on that planet, or do they remain?  If my forces remain there, do I regain control when I land ground forces there again?

The Space Docks and PDS units are destroyed.
From page 3 of the official FAQ version 2.3

Q: If a planet contains one Ground Force, one Space Dock, and one PDS,
  and “Local Unrest” is played on that planet, are the Space Dock and
  PDS destroyed?
A: Yes. The Space Dock and PDS would be destroyed due
  to the planet changing ownership (becoming neutral).

And for good measure, on page 12 of the rulebook:

If a PDS unit lands alone on a neutral or enemy planet, it is
  immediately destroyed.


text:
Survive Escape from Atlantis: whales and sharks setup
In  Survive: Escape from Atlantis, are the whales and sharks left out of the map during setup? Do they only appear when flipping "play immediately" whale or shark tile?

Yes, those creatures only appear when you flip a tile with the aforementioned creature. This is different than the Sea Monsters, that begin on the board at the start of the game.
The nearly complete rules, which a BGG commentor stated have not changed says:

Set aside the Shark, Whale, and remaining Boat tokens for now.

I've played a very similar game where dolphins/sharks/octopus/sea monsters all start off the map, and appear as you destroy tiles around Atlantis. I think that one was called Escape From Atlantis though. I guess many people had the same idea for a game!

I own a copy of Survive, and I posted a link to the rulebook for Survive:Escape from Atlantis, and both games have similar if not identical rules with respect to Whale, Shark, (dolphin) setup. They don't start on the board, you only add them when you flip the appropriate tile.


text:
Are there any playable Twilight Imperium 2 player variants?
I love TI 3rd edition, but can't always get together 3 players willing to commit the amount of time it takes to play a game.
Are there any 2 player variants of this game?

There is no official 2-player variant; the game just wasn't designed for it.
But as always, the internet provides.  Various fans have proposed two-player rule sets.
The Roland Wood variant is probably the most commonly used, building on earlier suggestions by other players.
(There was another popular version in the "Shattered Expansion", but I can no longer find a live link.)

Personally I don't actually recommend 2-player TI; like Cosmic Encounter, it's one of those games where the correct objective of a two-player game is "find a third player".  However, some people find it to be a blast; your personal taste may vary as always.

IT's worth trying, I don't think I'll get a chance to try it for a wee while though as I'm about to go travelling, and TI is not a travel friendly game.

After trying out normal games, princess, and automata, we came to what plays fastest/simplest and balances the races altogether with flow, so no one gets too pwned. Introducing:
IDLE, NOT SO IDLE, BOT
SETUP: Bot has all his units set up on the board (no war suns or flagships), home system only having max PDS and 1 space dock -

reinforcing all BOT's systems (1/3 of map if one BOT), with heavier fleet towards home system, placement ignores all rules and is symetric.

MISCELANIOUS: After both players pick 2 strategy cards each, they each pick 1 for BOT.
MISCELANIOUS: BOT plays the top strategy card for players to have opportunity to use it's secondary effect on his "turn". Bot does not benefit from its primary ability.
MISCELANIOUS: BOT always has maximum amount of commodities and no victory points.
ACTION PHASE: Player trade - Active player can trade any amount of commodities with BOT, if spending 1 "BOT influence token" per commodity altogether;
ACTION "command bot": Choose one system with BOT's units, pay "BOT influence token"s for each of his SPACE units in that system -

activate adjacent system containing any non-BOT units, move in, attack, capture with all BOT's space and ground forces. Player can then PRODUCE any amount of BOT's casualties in his previous location.

TRADE CARD: When a player plays trade card, and chooses BOT to replenish commodities, BOT looses all his commodities to the void, and replenishes.
DIPLOMACY CARD: Alternatively a player can use it to "command bot" without "BOT influence token" price (production costs would still apply).
STATUS PHASE: Before anything, Each player gets 2 "BOT influence token"s. Loosing player gets additional token, commodity and trade good per VP difference.
AGENDA PHASE: BOT votes yes for himself, and his adjecent planet to home towards direction of speaker; His influence is a sum of both players VP
AGENDA PHASE: Player can bid any amount of tokens any amount of times for all BOT's influence towards to be of his desire, even when denied from voting; No affect on tie.
AGENDA PHASE: Players can ADD votes any amount of times, until both agree that the decision is final.
Use anything you like for "BOT influence token", would it be m&m's or bottlecaps or tokens from another game.


text:
Is playing multiple money cards multiple actions in Monopoly Deal?
Does playing three money cards to your bank counts as an one of your actions or all three of them?

Adding three money cards to your bank counts as all three of your actions.
The rules describe step 2 of the turn as:

Play up to 3 cards
... Play 3 cards in any combination of the following: ...
A. Put Money/Action cards into your own bank ...
B.Put down properties into your own collection ...
C. Play action cards into the center

Putting down three money cards would count as playing three cards, all three of which fall under category "A" above.


text:
MTG - Does this do an infinite combo? Devil's play + Sevinne Chronoclasm + Geistblast from graveyard + Twinning Staff
The situation:

I cast Devil's Play for x = 3.
I cast Geistblast for its copy effect from my graveyard.
Sevinne, the Chronoclasm triggers on the 1st cast from graveyard instant/sorcery - I get 1 extra geistblast, targeting the devil's play
Twinning Staff triggers - I get another Geistblast targeting the devil's play
I now have 3 geistblasts that copy devils play . So I get 4 instances of devils play
Twinning staff triggers again. I now have 3 possibilities:

A) - Devil's play gets copied only one additional time, for a total of 5. Because twinning staff reads: "If you would copy a spell one or more times, instead copy it that many times plus an additional time". Devils Play will get copied 3 times by the 3 geistblasts, thus it has already been copied 'one or more times'.
B) - Each of the 3 geistblasts is a new trigger for twinning staff so I get 3 extra copies of those 3 geistblasts for a total of 7 devils plays
C) - If B is true and A is false, then I could also make the "Sevinne geistblast" target the original geistblast for an infinite loop of "copy geistblasts". However, this infinite loop gets me no profit. But, because I have twinning staff out, each time a "copied geistblast", targets the original geistblast, twinning staff triggers, netting me 2 geistblasts each time. Half of them go towards the infinite loop, the other half go to Devil's play for infinite damage.
Which of these options is correct?

As the answers indicate, Gestblast isn't cast from your graveyard so it doesn't have any interaction with Sevinne, the Chronoclasm.  Replace Geistblast with Increasing Vengeance (via flashback).

Twinning Staff doesn't have a triggered ability. It's a replacement effect

As the other answers indicate, Geistblast isn't cast from your graveyard so it doesn't have any interaction with Sevinne, the Chronoclasm.
But let's say we replace Geistblast with Increasing Vengeance (via flashback).
In that case, this is an infinite combo, as Sevinne + Twinning Staff gives you two extra copies of Increasing Vengeance with different targets.  You can use those to copy the original Increasing Vengeance (which is lower on the stack), with each of those Increasing Vengeances giving you two copies of the original due to Twinning Staff.  You can then repeat this process to get an arbitrarily high number of copies of Increasing Vengeance, at which point you can copy your original spell (Devil's Play) an arbitrary number of times.
Note that each iteration of the combo only gives you two more copies of an arbitrary spell.  Copies of a flashbacked Increasing Vengeance only give you one copy from Increasing Vengeance plus one from Twinning Staff, not two plus one.  See Will a copy of a flashed-back Increasing Vengeance still make two copies?.  Given you only have two copies at each iteration, I personally prefer using those to copy the copier first and only copying the base spell once you have enough of the copiers, as exponential growth is awesome.  You could also take the linear approach of creating one copy of the copier spell and one copy of the base spell at each iteration and then eventually create two copies of the base spell to end the loop.
Also of note, the key to this combo is Twinning Staff and two starting copies of a copier spell.  Sevinne, the Chronoclasm is only needed to get things started and there are simpler replacements.  You can do the following with Twinning Staff, Forked Bolt, and two copies of Fork for a combo I henceforth dub "The Silverware Drawer":

Have Twinning Staff on the battlefield
Cast Forked Bolt (the base spell)
Cast the first Fork targeting Forked Bolt (the copier)
Cast the second Fork targeting the first Fork (copy the copier)
The second Fork resolves, giving you two copies of Fork due to Twinning Staff.  Have each of those copy the first Fork.
Repeat step 5 until you have 2^64 copies of Fork. (the infinite combo)
Have your 2^64 copies of Fork copy Forked Bolt. (end the combo)
Get 2^65 + 3 copies of Forked Bolt (the "+ 3" is from the original Forked Bolt and the first Fork plus Twinning Staff)
Deal 737,86,976,294,838,206,470 damage, divided as you chose (win the game)

Do the copies of Increasing Vengeance still activate Sevinne's "Whenever you cast your first instant or sorcery from your graveyard each turn"?

@user7868 No - for starters, the copies aren't cast, they are just placed straight on the stack. Even if they were cast, they wouldn't be the first in a turn.
You could reduce the number of spells needed (but increase the cost) for the infinite combo by using Fork + the activated ability of the Staff to get the second copy.

No, because Geistblast is not cast. Its ability

{2}{U}, Exile Geistblast from your graveyard: Copy target instant or sorcery spell you control. You may choose new targets for the copy.

is an activated ability, not an alternative casting cost. Therefore Sevinne is not triggered and your chain falls apart at step 3.

The rulings on gatherer reinforce Philip's answer: When you activate Geistblast's ability, you are not casting a copy of Devil's Play.

When Geistblast’s ability resolves, it creates a copy of the instant
or sorcery spell. The copy is created on the stack, so it’s not
“cast.” Abilities that trigger when a player casts a spell won’t
trigger. The copy will then resolve like a normal spell, before the
original spell resolves but after players get a chance to cast spells
and activate abilities.

That's noting that the spell being copied isn't being cast, rather than Geistblast itself.


text:
Scoring first word with all 7 letters
What scoring conditions apply if all 7 letters are used for the first word in Scrabble? Does the player get double points for the word AND 50 points for using all their tiles?

You get both.
In fact, there are three bonuses that you can get on your first turn, evaluated in this order:

Double letter score (if you play your word such that it hits one of the double letter scores that are 5 away from the starting square)
Double word score (from the starting square)
Bingo: +50 points for using all your letters

Let's say you play the word "LETTERS", with the L on a double letter score.  You would get 66 points:

Base 7 for tiles: all these tiles are 1 point
8 points post double letter score (the L is doubled to 2 points)
16 points post double word score
66 points post bonus


text:
What is the quickest way to setup Dune: Imperium from DireWolf playing single, double or more players?
I recently purchased Dune: Imperium to play with my family over Christmas.   What is the quickest way to setup the board game for single player or multiple players?  Is there a cheat sheet that provides easier entry to the setup or game play?

As with all my current "big' games, I would have set up the entire game once, including every player's starting components, then bagged them as individual sets before packing away the game.
The exceptions are general resources that have larger pools, which are kept together in their own bags, and  cards like the Leaders, which are ordered (you could choose alphabetically and/or complexity, especially if you expect to have new players for the foreseeable future).
All other decks are bagged separately, with the bags labelled to make repacking eaiser, so that they can be pulled out and shuffled and placed immediately. If you must bag decks together,

two decks: face to face, backs out, making separation easier

three or more: facing the same way, stacked in the order they would be placed by the board

The remaining tokens (Mentat, Factions) are bagged together.
When setting up to play, first put the board, decks and resources in the correct place according to the instructions (for solo/pair play, there is a separate sheet, or you might use the app to reduce effort on physical setup). Then, players choose their leader and a bag of individual components, and do their own setup.
This way, you only unpack the components you will definitely need, and they are not spread throughout the box. Following the rulebook requires slight adjustment as you complete the collective and individual setups separately. For example, the F1 step is left until individual setup, when each player picks up their own water in their own time.
There are benefits of this process for new players. They can help by unbagging and shuffling during collective setup, then mimic your individual setup afterward.

Unexpected. Thank you!  I do some of what you said, but not all.  This is great.


text:
Can an opponent put a property up for auction at a higher price than I have in cash?
I only have $5.  My opponent lands on an un-owned property and put it up for auction.  Can my opponent make a starting bid of $10 on this auction even though that is more money than I have?

Can you clarify what you mean by "auction it for 10 dollars"? Does that mean they started the bidding at 10 dollars, or that they bought it for 10 dollars at the auction?

Properties are auctioned by the bank, not players. Does your question need an edit to clarify the situation you're discussing or have you been playing differently?

@Dancrumb "Properties are auctioned by the bank, not players" sounds like the property owner can then bid too - effectively setting a minimum price.  Hmmm.

@chux-ReinstateMonica, there's a subtle but important difference. The starting bid (from the bank) can be ignored. If nobody makes it, the bank will HAVE to go lower. If the opponent is bidding and "setting a minimum bid", they HAVE to purchase at this price. Small, but important if cash is short all around

@chux-ReinstateMonica I would say that "the bank" is the property owner; but its only way of communicating is via the rulebook (the player acting as Banker is just an employee of that bank, following those rules). The rules state there is no minimum, so that is the bank's starting bid. Bids from other players are all bids to buy the property, not to retain it, regardless of whose dice roll triggered the auction.

@IMSoP Hmm, I was thinking of a property owner auctioning their own property (not a usual and not maybe valid option) - not the usual bank doing so.

@chux-ReinstateMonica I'm not sure if there's any such situation in the rules. The main causes of auction are unclaimed property after a token move (as noted in the question), and assets of a bankrupt player who has defaulted to the bank.

What alternative would there be?  Whether the initial bid, the third bid, or the umpteenth bid, why wouldn't your opponent be able to ultimately bid more money than you have?

This is definitely allowed, and a good tactic to leverage a cash advantage.
There is no minimum or maximum price for an auction.  The rules state:

Bidding may start at any price.

Monopoly auctions do not have "the bidding will start at $10".  They just have "bidding is open".  Once the auction begins, a bid by any player sets the minimum price for the auction at that bid.  Your opponent could easily bid $10 on the property, forcing you to either let them have it for $10 or bid more than you have in cash.  You could bid first, say starting the bid at $5, but that doesn't meaningfully change the situation, as they can just respond by out-bidding you at $10.
You may bid more money than you have in cash, but you are still obligated to pay it if you win the auction.  This may be a reasonable play if you can afford it by mortgaging property and/or selling houses, especially to drive up the price for your opponent.  But be careful not to bid  more than you can pay after mortgages and sales, as if you win the auction and can't pay your bid, you go bankrupt.  In particular, if you bid more than you can afford, you opponents can all just let you win the bid, at which point you go bankrupt and the property you just bought would go up for auction again (in addition to all your other properties).


text:
Identify this game with 4 players, each have 2 choices
The game is played with any deck of playing cards, or just using hand gestures without any items at all.
How I've seen it usually played - There are 4 players. Every round, each player will choose between a red card or black card. All players then reveal the card they chose and points are scored based on what cards each team chose:

No. of Red Cards
No. of Black Cards
Reds Score
Blacks Score

4
0
-4

3
1
+1
-3

2
2
+2
-2

1
3
+3
-1

0
4

+2

Example: if 3 players play a red card, 1 player plays a black card - each player that played red gets 1 point, the player that played black loses 3 points. If all players play red, all players lose 4 points; if all players play black, all players get 2 points.
(*Summary - the only way to get points is if everyone plays black, or you play red and get a point from every black; but if everyone plays red, everyone loses points. This will not be told to players, but they can deduce it easily from the table.)
The goal is to get the highest score from adding all 4 players' scores together.
I remember playing this game in school, clubs, or camps. It was mainly used to teach players to look at the big picture/goal and trust each other, instead of being greedy/competing with each other. Before teaching what to do and the scoring system, the goal of the game is explained at the very beginning in hopes of players later forgetting to work together and instead compete for the highest score by themselves. Understandably after playing the first time, all players will know to just always play black as anyone playing red will not increase the overall total score, as such this game is only meant to be played once just to teach this lesson.
(I am not quite sure if this originally used playing cards, so this may not be the correct stackexchange to ask this. So please let me know where I can ask this.)

This is the sort of Prisoner's Dilemma game that is studied by economists. I think it is Stag Hunt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt) but I am not sure.

Thanks @Flounderer, I managed to Google it on my own and posted an answer, also thanks for the different version Stag Hunt

@Flounderer The Stag Hunt and Prisoner's Dilemma are different games.  This is a really important distinction.  Notably, the Stag Hunt has a global utility maximizing Nash Equilibrium, where the Prisoner's Dilemma does not.  They are both symmetric 2x2 game theory games; the Prisoner's Dilemma is just one game in that category (albeit the most famous) and is not the name for the category itself.

@Zags thanks for clarifying it the game theory. I'm not very familiar with the actual terms.

This is what game theory would term a 4-player symmetric game.  Based on the payoff matrix, it seems most similar to being a 4-player version of Chicken (A.K.A. Hawk-Dove).  The key to Chicken is that pushing a little can gain you some advantage but if everyone tries to gain an advantage, it's catastrophic.
One reduction of your payoff matrix to two players is the following, which is a textbook game of Chicken:

Black
Red

Black
+2, +2
-1, +3

Red
+3, -1
-4 , -4

It's not a Prisoner's Dilemma because the Nash Equilibrium is not for all players to defect (i.e. play red).  If everyone plays red, any player would have incentive to play black.
It's also not a Stag Hunt because all players cooperating (i.e. playing black) isn't a Nash Equilibrium.  If all players play black, any single player could do better by playing red.
It's worth mentioning that the equilibrium analysis of all of these games changes when it becomes a repeated game (you play more than once with the same players).  For example, while the Nash Equilibrium for the Prisoner's Dilemma is for both players to defect, conditional cooperation can be a dominant strategy in the repeated game.  Assuming rational actors, you would likely see a similar effect in the game you describe, where conditional cooperation (playing black as long as everyone else is playing black) would emerge as a stable strategy in the repeated game.
As a final note, your statement "The goal is to get the highest score from adding all 4 players' scores together" is quite at odds with tracking individual scores per player.  The game is only interesting if each player is competing to get the highest individual score.

In the version I played, it was meant to teach a lesson about players to work together and achieve the common goal, but were purposely given the option to gain more for themselves while not increasing the 4-team-total, not about making the game interesting/competitive. It's also not meant to be played with the same people more than once as the strategy is obvious - everyone always choose black.

the 2 player reduction also doesn't seem to match the score table I gave. In this version, as long as there's at least 1 red and 1 black, the overall total gain will be 0. Is there a version of a symmetric game more closely resembling mine, or is mine just an unofficial modified version of one of the game examples provided?

@NickLeeJy Playing it as a repeated game does add some analysis; I've added a paragraph on repeated games.

@NickLeeJy My two-player reduction is literally the first, fourth, and fifth rows of your score chart.  I took those rows rather than rows 1, 3, and 5 because this isn't a zero-sum game; it's much more relevant that there is incentive for any one player to defect (i.e. playing red when all players play black increases your score) than it is that defection causes no net-change in total score.

@NickLeeJy Any 2-player game with the property W > T > L > X is a game of chicken.  The 2-player reduction I presented here has the values +3, +2, -1, -4.   The values +2, +1, -2, -4 would get you the property you care about (when players play different numbers, there is no net-change in total score), but that is not a strict subset of your 4-player payout matrix, while +3, +2, -1, -4 is.

Thanks @Zags for the detailed explanation. I think I understand what you meant from the answer and comments now.

After Googling through various game theory rabbit holes, I've found one type of this game: The Prisoner's Dilemma. (and also thanks Flounderer for commenting a different version of the game - Stag Hunt)
General summary of a symmetric game (this type of game)

If all players cooperate, everyone can win, gain something, or lose less.
If some try to get ahead on their own or betray others, they will gain more and others will lose more.
If everyone betrays each other, everyone loses more.

(edited the correct term for the game theory from Zags's comment)

It's not a Prisoner's Dilemma.  See my answer for an explanation


text:
How to secretly choose factions that become public later?
I'm looking for a website/tool/method that will allow my (in-person) group to submit their faction choices in advance without anyone knowing what it is. Then once everyone has submitted it can be made public.  This process needs to work remotely, as we're trying to do it in advance of getting people together to play the game.
In particular, we're looking to use this for Twilight Imperium.
Edit: Background info was unnecessary

Why can't you just write them down on pieces of paper? Or type them into your phones, then everyone flips their phones at the same time.

@Acccumulation, your solution is good and simple in real life, but I assume the OP plays online, maybe on Tabletop Simulator.

@Cohensius If so, I think that's an important factor that should be included in the question.

@Accumulation, we are not all physically together at any time before the game and we like to make these decisions in advance to make setup faster.

Have everyone send their preferences to everyone else as an encrypted string using a randomly generated single-use encryption key.  Here is an example of a website that will do it for you: https://md5hashing.net/crypto (I found this by Googling "encrypt a text string").  Then, once everyone has sent their encrypted preference, everyone sends out their encryption key to everyone else, thus allowing everyone to read everyone else's answer.
Alternatively, everyone could send a peppered hash (a salted hash where the only the hash and not the salt is shared) of their preferences in the first round of emails, and then reveal their preferences and the pepper that they used in the second round of emails.
For an example of the encryption method, my AES encrypted base64 encoded preferences are (email 1):

HJTX3gAAAAOEqHAapbitluZcstDWoq52q28VJU+G/AjvUo1jkvCQ5YWk33u7U2mjc9AUq40nhowFV+K63IZzyA9OUl5fQNQkz5l1/Pz5A/gVALgNnGEGWsIsNZtfhHmfHPCG5MglDTCedklAfPfD9S5lYVfTuljaZ+iVWskevhQ0pNWq4+HLOT7oIEnzWmdJwJA4iJgWcc9dybDxnqlogceDkclFgyDuKA6aYDrJ2TTn56WykPl9h1DXVES9i8b70urJsCHGT94lX5iLlECjSZfnMNGbwNmkCdnrkDoWxw4Dh8i3WkQC42s9

My secret key is (email 2):

12345

Everyone can then determine my preferences are:

Xxcha
Hacan
L1z1x

The thing you then have to figure out is an algorithmic method for breaking ties if two people request the same faction, which is a whole other theoretical problem.

You don't need encrypt things - everyone can just submit a hash of their preferences, and then once you've got all the hashes reveal their choices.

@PhilipKendall Brute forcing that is pretty easy.  If you're at the point where you don't trust a player to be a fair arbiter, you need to have a little more defense than that.  Salting and hashing would work, which I'll add as another option.

Salting the hash doesn't help in this scenario as you can can still brute force individually. The term for what you are describing here is a pepper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(cryptography), but at that point encryption is simpler.

@user1937198 A pepper is what I had in mind (a salted hash where the salt isn't set).  I wasn't aware it had a different name.  Answer edited.

Thanks. This works, though it's probably too involved to convince my group to adopt.

Create and send to a shared email address
This idea works under the assumption that your group is relatively fixed or that there is a subset of players that are always present.
Next time you all get together, create a new email address - this email address is going to be used as a destination of record for faction choice.  The password for this account will be a passphrase - one made up by the always-present players.  To create the password for the account, the always-present players take turns adding one word to the password, a process that is repeated on subsequent game-days to retrieve the most recent batch of choices.
For example, while creating the account, Player 1 (who maybe owns the game) enters a single word into the password field.  Without moving on to the next screen (leaving the password field selected), have Player 2 (perhaps the player who always hosts) then enters another word, followed by Player 3, etc.
In the end, the password for the account is unknown to all players, but accessible to the group as a whole, by repeating the process to log in.
Before gameday, everyone sends a single email to the group account containing their faction choice.  On gameday, log into the email address (probably in incognito mode to prevent the password being saved, etc) the emails are read and handled in whatever way you wish, and then delete the emails so that there's a clean record for next time.
After gameday, or after deciding on factions, make sure the email is not left signed in, and that the password is not saved, so that it cannot be tampered with between games.  Repeat for future game days.


text:
Can you use a wild card as part of changing rent on two property groups in a turn?
In Monopoly deal, can you use a wild card as part of changing rent on two property groups in the same turn?
For example, at the start of the turn, I have already played (on the table):

1 blue property
1 red property
1 wild multicolor property (associated with the blue)

After drawing my cards, can I do the following?

1st move - a blue rent card, with 2 properties on blue (one of which is the wild)
Free action - Move the wild card to red.
2nd move - a red rent, with 2 properties on red (one of which is the same wild)

This is a legal play.  You can move a wild property between sets on your turn, including in between charging rents, and doing so does not require an action.
The only thing from the rules governing property rearranging is the following:

You can only reorganize your property collection on your turn.

From this we can deduce:

You can reorganize property on your turn, including moving wilds between sets.

It is not an action (the game's notion of "action" is playing a card, and moving property around does not require playing any cards from your hand).

There are not limits on how many times a turn you can rearrange property.

A proper view of the turn structure looks something like this:

[Can rearrange property]

Draw two cards (or five if your hand is empty)

[Can rearrange property]

Play card 1 (optional)

[Can rearrange property]

Play card 2 (optional)

[Can rearrange property]

Play card 3 (optional)

[Can rearrange property]

Discard down to 7 cards.

[Can rearrange property]


text:
What are the benefits of controlling Mecatol Rex?
Control of Mecatol Rex is very important to the story of TI, so I assume it's also an important part of gameplay.
When I first read the rules I was surprised to learn that controlling MR does not ensure overall victory, but rather bestows a variety of benefits.
What are all the benefits of controlling Mecatol Rex?

The primary benefit is points.  You get one point for being the first person to take Mecatol Rex (from the custodians token) and you can score a point if you control Mecatol Rex and play the Imperial strategy card:

Gain 1 point if you control Mecatol Rex; otherwise, draw 1 secret objective.

I can tell you from experience that even one or two bonus points are hugely impactful.  In most of the games I've played, the winner has scored at least 1 point from Mecatol Rex.  This is because the public objectives are, on average, roughly symmetric; they are available to all players, and each player has roughly the same ability to achieve them (with caveats for differences in starting positions and faction abilities, such as Jol-Nar being better at technology objectives).  Players can only get 3 secret objectives, and this limit is also the same for all players.  Points from Mecatol Rex are the primary asymmetry in points, which is what lets a player hit the victory threshold a turn earlier than players that are matched with them on objectives.
The other advantage to holding it is that the planet has 6 influence (the most of any planet and tied for most of any system).  This allows a player to get two extra command tokens off of the Leadership strategy card (either primary or secondary ability) or can be used to help score any "Spend X influence" objectives (Sway the Council and Manipulate Galactic Law).  This also gives a player outsized voting power in the Agenda Phase.  Note that because planets refresh before the Agenda Phase, you get to both spend influence on command tokens or objectives and use Mecatol Rex to vote if you hold Mecatol Rex for the whole turn.
Note that some of these benefits can be obtained by controlling Mecatol Rex breifly, whereas others require holding it across turns.  Getting the caretakers token (worth 1 point) can be done with a pure smash and grab operation; getting it doesn't require you to hold Mecatol Rex for any duration (just to have taken it first).  Additionally, if you have picked the Imperial strategy card already this turn, you can take Mecatol Rex and score a point off of it in the same turn without having to hold it for very long.  Having the extra voting power requires you to be holding Mecatol Rex at the end of the turn.  Getting the extra command tokens or using Mecatol Rex's influence to score objectives are the benefits that are most tied to holding Mecatol Rex for a real duration, as planets you conquer are automatically exhausted and you usually need to wait for the status phase for them to unexhaust.


text:
What will happen when someone give me card through forced deal and that card would make complete set. Can he use deal breaker on that?
Let's say I have two green properties of and someone uses Forced Deal on me to take some other card from my side and give me a third green property, which could possibly complete my set of green cards.  Can that person use Deal Breaker on that set in the same turn (as a subsequent action)?
To put it differently, can another player use Forced Deal to force me to complete a set or do I have the choice to not complete the set?

Does this answer your question? In Monopoly Deal, can I put properties of the same color on the table, but not in a "set". TLDR yes, you must group them together and yes, the other player can use a Dealbreaker card on it.

If the property they give you is single-color, then they can take your set with Deal Breaker that turn.  If it is a wild, you have the choice to treat it as a different color.
See my answer over on this question for the justification.


text:
Intentionally breaking up a developed monopoly
In Monopoly Deal, can you take a wild property away from a compete set with a house and hotel on it, place the house and hotel in your bank, and use the wild property towards another set?

Yes, you can.
The rules on wilds say:

You can swap [wilds] around amoungst different sets on your turn.

Hasbro answered what happens to houses and hotels on a set that gets broken up:

If you break up a full set that has houses and hotels, those houses and hotels have to go into your bank.

Thus, you can intentionally break up your own monopoly by moving the wild, in which case, the houses and hotels go to your bank.


text:
Game pieces smaller than a bingo chip
I'm designing a board game and am looking to purchase a quantity of small tokens to serve as markers.  Ideally, they would be wooden, pre-painted (I'm not picky about color as long as there are a few different colors), and very small.  I need about 100, in three different colors.
The best I can find online are bingo chips, which are usually .75" to 1" and too large.  Does anyone know what I can search for to find game pieces in the quarter to half inch size?  It doesn't matter what shape, as long as they shapes aren't known objects, like unicorns or sailboats or something.  Cubes, discs, etc are all fine.
What are tokens of this size commonly called, so I can search for them on my own?

While this is a question about designing a game it does appear to be more of a shopping question as you are looking for someone to find an item online.

Not asking for someone to find an item online rather what search term to use.

I am just stating what it appears like to me

I do a lot of of game design and prototyping. If you have other games in your collection that have the token/parts you want just use them for a prototype.  Saves buying anything.

Yes, that, @StartPlayer and also thrift stores for old used games on the cheap with reusable boards and dice and tokens!

Two types of wooden markers you might be interested in:

15mm disks (for example, these on MeepleSource)

Wooden cubes, which frequently come in 8mm, 10mm or 12mm (for example, these on MeepleSource)

This is not an ad for MeepleSource; you can buy these types of parts from a number of online sources.


text:
What's the name of this Connect 4 variant?
I'm being trying to find this variant.
It's a variant where, when you have a full column, you can place a disk into that column and push downwards, causing all the disks to go down one row except for the bottom disk with then falls out of the bottom?

Due to the way the reset mechanism works in Connect 4, this variant could easily cause the entire game to be reset when you attempt to push 1 column down through the bottom.

It’s not using a normal rack, pushing down only effects the column the disk is placed in, and only when it’s full.

This is not an official variant of the game.  It's similar to the "PopOut" variant by Hasbro, and seems like a totally viable house-rule variant if you have a Connect 4 Revised Edition board.
Hasbro released a new version of Connect 4 in 2008, the Connect 4 Revised Edition, that has the ability to remove the bottom checker from just a single column without messing up the rest of the board.  The intention of this was to support two new game variants (PopOut and Pop 10).  The one most similar to the rules you describe is PopOut:

Play PopOut just like the Original Connect 4. However, on your turn, you can choose either to drop a counter in OR pop one out of the bottom row.
Note: You can only drop in or pop out counters of your own colour.

There is also Connect 4 Revised Second Edition, which adds two more official variants (Five in a Row and Power Up), but neither of these are relevant.
The rules you describe are unlikely to show up as on official variant for the game without a hardware update.  On the classic Connect 4 board, trying to push a checker into a full column could very easily reset the whole board by accident.  Meanwhile, the Revised Connect 4 boards are designed to allow for removal of the bottom checker, but you do so by popping it out of the column, not by pushing a new checker in at the top.  While the Revised boards fully support this style of play, you would need to pop out the checker first and then add the new checker second.
Don't let any of this stop you!  House rules can be great.  It seems like a cool rule, and if you have a Connect 4 board that supports it, go for it.

I think that's the one, maybe.

This is not a well-known variant.
But it sounds like an interesting House rule
If it was a common variant it would be mentioned in one of the Connect4 variant lists which appear on BGG, Wiki, ultraboardgames, Hasbro-rules.
Searching through lists of Connect4 variants, I spotted two variants with some similarity to the push-down rule you are looking for:

"Popout" allows to drop a disk from the bottom:

The game play is like the original Connect4 except on your turn you
can do:

Drop a checker, or
Pop one of your own checkers out of the bottom row.

In "Power Up" each player have several special disks, one of them is the Anvil, which when placed immediately pops out all the checkers below it, leaving only the anvil on the bottom row.

Sources:

BGG: Variations on four-in-a-row
BGG: the Tic Tac Toe Family Reunion
Wiki: Connect_Four #Rule_variations
ultraboardgames: variations
Hasbro rules archives

I remember when I was younger playong the game with a physical rack that coul actually have the bottom disks fall out.

@blademan9999, yes I also had a physical rack that could actually have the bottom disks fall out.  It was used to initialize the board after a game ends. Removing all the disks.

Chat GPT should not be used for answers.

I meant when you placed a disk in a full row.

@JoeW, My answer is "I made a thorough search and did not find."  GPT is only the 5th source after searching at the most important sources.

The revised edition (where the variants listed in the answer come from) has an altered mechanism for disk retention and allows for individual disks from a single column to be popped out: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/4037436/connect-4-revised-edition

GPT answers are considered bad practice on most of the sites that I have seen. Even if it is a supplemental part it should be avoided.

@JoeW, ok I deleted GPT's answer

An AI generated answer would be equivalent to making up an answer about something you have heard about for the first time because you've played hundreds of other games like it. It might be right but there's 0 actual confidence in the response.

I looked at it as another search tool like google-search.  My statement was: This variant isn't shown at the known variant-lists, not in Wiki, not shown in google-search and even GPT do not know about it. Anyway, I get it, I will not mention GPT again.


text:
Twilight Imperium: Can you use flagship's space cannon against ships in an adjacent system?
This feels like something that has been asked but I can't find it.
In Twilight Imperium, if I move the Xxacha flagship into an active system, could I then use its space cannon against ships in an adjacent system?
The relevant ability on the Flagship is:

You may use this unit's SPACE CANNON against ships that are in adjacent systems.
Space Cannon 5 (x3)

E.g. Sol has a carrier in Mecatol Rex, could I then move my flagship into a system adjacent to Mecatol Rex and then use my space cannon ability against their carrier in the Mecatol Rex system?

Not exactly, with space cannon you can only target units in the active system. If you move the flagship to a system, you can not shoot space cannon to an adjacent system as it is not the active one. However, you can activate a system adjacent to your flagship and shoot your space cannon without moving any ship.

Good answer.  Would be better with citations from the rulebook

Yes, you could if – according to the Twilight Imperium Wiki:

you have the PDS II unit upgrade "Deep Space Cannon".

If a player has the PDS II unit upgrade technology, they can use the
“Space Cannon” ability of their PDS units that are in systems that are
adjacent to the active system (Deep Space Cannon). The hits are still
assigned to units in the active system.

You have the right rules quote but the wrong conclusion.  The key piece of that rules is that you can only resolve space cannons against units in the active system

Additionally, the Xxacha flagship does not need the PDS II upgrade to target adjacent systems; By default, it essentially acts as 3 PDSIIs, even without the upgrade.


text:
Who is the owner of a gifted token? Can Coveted Falcon steal gifts?
If I play a Bloomburrow card that gifts my opponent a permanent, such as Blooming Blast, who is the owner of that permanent?  Coveted Falcon can steal back permanents a player owns but doesn't control, so I'm curious if it can steal back gifts.

Your opponent will be the owner of that token.
When you gift your opponent a token, they create that token. That means they will be the owner of that token.

111.2. The player who creates a token is its owner. The token enters the battlefield under that player’s control.

702.174d “Gift a Food” means the effect is “The chosen player creates a Food token.”
702.174f “Gift a tapped Fish” means the effect is “The chosen player creates a tapped 1/1 blue Fish creature token.”
702.174h “Gift a Treasure” means the effect is “The chosen player creates a Treasure token.”
702.174i “Gift an Octopus” means the effect is “The chosen player creates an 8/8 blue Octopus creature token.”

That means you cannot steal them with Coveted Falcon.


text:
Counting runs during play
When playing Cribbage, if I played a 7, and my opponent played an 8, (making a 15 for 2 points), can I then play a 6 for a run of three, or do they have to be in consecutive order?

According to this site Yes it is a run.

Example: Cards are played in this order: 9, 6, 8, 7. The dealer pegs 2 for fifteen when he plays the six and pegs 4 for run when he plays the seven (the 6, 7, 8, 9 sequence). The cards were not played in sequential order, but they form a true run with no foreign card.

I have seen written rules by Hoyle where they are required to be played in order, but every single web site I looked at allow for them to be out of order as long as they aren't interrupted with non-run cards.

"According to Hoyle" is not under copyright; anyone can publish a set of rules under that name.


text:
Small world, spider's web, when lava conquers, does it give victory points at the end?
When using the Lava special power from the Spider's Web expansion, do spaces with lava count as 'occupied' to score victory points?  Or do they just count as a 'defense' until your next turn?

The rules for Lava state

At the end of your turn, for each Mountain Region you occupy, you may
  place 1 Lava Token in any Region adjacent to that Mountain Region
  (excluding Regions protected by Special and Racial Powers). All tokens
  in this Region are taken in hand by the defeated player and treated as
  if the Region were conquered (except there is no loss of tokens). The
  Region may not be entered by any other player until after the
  beginning of your next turn. At the beginning of your next turn,
  remove all Lava Tokens from the board and proceed as usual.

So the Lava tokens are not conquering the regions, they are simply treating the defending tokens as if they were conquered.  Therefore you would not score points for those regions.

OK, that's how I was leaning toward interpreting it, but wanted another to verify for me.  Thanks


text:
Random targeting and protection
I have a creature with protection from green in play along with another creature. My opponent plays a green spell that targets a creature I control chosen at random and does damage to it. Does the protection make the creature with protection an invalid target for said spell (automatically targeting my only other creature), or is there a 50/50 chance the protected creature will be targeted resulting in the spell being countered?
Edit for clarification (targeted @ the discussion in the comments)
The situation is slightly different than depicted (was posted via phone, couldn't easily provide links etc)
I have a Woodlot Crawler in play along with another creature. My opponent plays Scab-Clan Giant, and its ability triggers. Question is whether my Woodlot Crawler is a legal target for the triggered ability.

It really depends on the wording of the spell that will be causing the damage. Can you add the exact wording?

@Pow-Ian I'd like to see you to back up that comment with two examples of your own, because I don't think it depends.

@Rainbolt if it is a card that says target random creature then protection holds because it is targeting, if it is a card that says one of your opponent's creature's then I would argue it does not target and protection and hex proof would not stop the spell. The same way Wrath of God can destroy a creature with protection from white, but Desert twister can't destroy a creature with protection from green. I was just seeking clarification that the wording of the card was not paraphrased to say target random creature when it actually said a creature your opponent controls

@Pow-Ian If it doesn't literally say "target" then you are having a different conversation than the rest of us. I disagree than the question is unclear in its use of the word. It's in the title, and in the body (multiple times).

@Rainbolt that is exactly what I was trying to clarify.

Does this answer your question? Why can't Haphazard Bombardment randomly select a permanent with Indestructible?

nb: don't close this question from'14 just because a question from '18 duplicates it. If you delete one, delete the later one as indicated in the close reason description.

The Comprehensive Rules don't explicitly mention random targets. However, we can still use them to get an answer. The bottom line is that the creature with protection can't be chosen as the target, making the other creature automatically the target.
Now, as you point out, "target creature [you] control chosen at random" could mean you must target a creature you control that is also a valid target, or it could that you target a creature you control without filtering on legal targets. Even if you try to pick from all creatures, the game itself will restrict you to legal targets.
CR 601.2 details the exact process for casting a spell. The key sentence is as follows:

If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast (see rule 717, "Handling Illegal Actions")

As pointed out in comments, 601.2c specifies that the casting becomes illegal specifically when you try to target an invalid target, whether it's because of protection as in this case, or hexproof/shroud. At this point, it's as if the spell was never cast, so the spell can never wind up targeting the creature with protection. It can only wind up with a legal target.
The ruling for Goblin Test Pilot confirms this (emphasis mine):

To choose a target at random, all possible legal targets (including creatures and players) must have an equal chance of being chosen. There are many ways to do this, including assigning each possible legal target a number and rolling a die.

I think your second paragraph doesn't really make sense. There isn't a well defined meaning in Magic for "all possible targets without regard for whether they are legal targets." Any object or player either is or isn't a valid target. It would probably be better to quote the part of rule 601.2c about "without violating any rules or effects that say that an object or player can't be chosen as a target." (protection is such a rule).

That was the point: even if we allow, for sake of argument, the invalid targets to be chosen by the dice or whatever, the game itself undoes that choice. I'll admit it could probably be phrased a bit better.

That illegal actions quotation talks about undoing the entire casting of the spell, not going back to the previous step and redoing the target choices.

There, hopefully that's a bit cleaner. Picking an illegal target is treated as if the spell was never cast, so only legal targets can be chosen. If you think the answer could be improved further, feel free to edit.

My point was that your reasoning is overly convoluted. Targets don't have to be legal because if they weren't, the spell wouldn't have been cast correctly, so it couldn't have happened that way. Targets have to be legal because 601.2c says so. The reasoning based on an impossible hypothetical scenario, in my opinion, makes the answer unnecessarily confusing. I'd edit, but it's not really good form for someone else to edit the central reasoning of an answer to that extent.

@murgtroid99 If you were to only choose between legal targets, you would be violating the totally random choice required by the card. I think Michael's explanation that the legal choice is merely a consequence of rolling back the game state until a legal one happens to be randomly chosen is correct.

601.2c doesn't apply. If it applied, it would mean that you would be prevented from casting Goblin Test Pilot if you randomly picked an illegal target, but the ruling you quoted contradicts that.

@ikegami The question actually says "target creature [you] control chosen at random". Michael just left out a word, and I'm about to edit it in for him.

Illegal targets can and do happen in Magic - via effects that make the target illegal while the effect targeting it is still on the stack.  This is why target validity is checked both when the effect/spell is played and again when it resolves.  In the event of an illegal target, the effect simply fizzles; it doesn't "roll back" and pick a new target or return to the casters hand or anything.

@DanStaley The situations you refer to only occur when the target becomes illegal after the it was targeted. Obviously that isn't the case here. If you need further confirmation of that, just see the ruling on Goblin Test Pilot. Pilot's ability doesn't "fizzle" on a target that was illegal before Pilot was even activated.