text:
How do undying triggers resolve against exile and other players reanimating my graveyard?
So I play casually with a sacrifice and undying combo, which plays around with instant speed self sacrificing to avoid pesky control tactics. I'm wondering if it actually works how I think it does. Say I have a Geralf's Messenger that I just cast. I pass priority and my opponent attempts to exile it with Stasis Snare. In response, I pay Viscera Seer's cost to activate his ability sacrificing the messenger. It dies, comes back to the battlefield, does it's enter the battlefield thing, I scry 1, and then the Stasis Snare resolves. I get that typically when an object moves from one zone to another, it forgets what it used to be, but it had never left a public zone, so does 400.7g apply? Am I misinterpreting anything here?
Additionally, my opponent once tried to outsmart my undeath by using the enchantment Grave Betrayal. Both the undying trigger and the Grave Betrayal trigger occur from the same event, but since I control the object(creature), I choose the ordering for the abilities, right? I wouldn't want to get off easy against my opponents just because of confusing wording.

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/9385/can-creatures-with-undying-or-persist-escape-from-grave-betrayal

Your first example works as you want: the stasis snare doesn't exile your creature. When it moves between zones, unless otherwise stated, it and everything that targets it forgets that it was something else. Note that 400.7 says zone, not just public zone.
For your second example, you get to keep your creature. Grave Betrayal triggers at the beginning of the end step (technically, it creates a delayed trigger that triggers at the end step), while Undying triggers immediately. Once Undying resolves, it's back on the battlefield and is a different object than what Grave Betrayal is attempting to steal.


text:
what are the differences in timing for chess grading?
Can you clear something up as regards rating time bands.
Official or standard grading I always assumed was an hour-and-a-half or more. Am I incorrect?
Is Blitz an hour or less?
Is Speedplay 0-15 mins?
FIDE or guidance appreciated.

This is a slightly different question than the linked duplicate because it asks what time controls are used for rating purposes, not what time controls are popular. This is an interesting (and surprisingly complicated) question.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Karlov of the Ghost Council and Extort
Will Karlov of the Ghost Council gain its counters if I use extort right after playing it?
E.g.: I play him, then I use extort because I played him, will it gain its counters?

No, Karlov will not gain counters.
Extort will resolve before Karlov. When you gain life from Extort, Karlov will not be on the battlefield yet, and his ability only works while on the battlefield.

702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. “Extort” means “Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.”

The order of play is:

You cast Karlov, it goes on the stack.
Because of the completed cast of Karlov, Extort triggers. It goes on the stack on top of Karlov.
Extort resolves first because it is the top-most item on the stack. You decide to pay the costs, and you gain life.
Karlov resolves and enters the battlefield. His triggered ability starts listening for life-gain events.

No, he will not gain counters.
From the comprehensive rules (emphasis mine):

702.100. Extort
702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. “Extort” means “Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.”
702.100b If a permanent has multiple instances of extort, each triggers separately.

Because Extort is an ability that triggers when a spell is cast, in this case Karlov, it will go on the stack above Karlov; it will resolve before he enters the battlefield. The order would look like this, assuming nothing else happens on the stack:

Cast Karlov
Extort triggers, adding it to the stack, and you decide to pay W or B
If you pay, each opponent will lose life while you gain the life lost
Karlov enters the battlefield

As you can see, Karlov will enter the battlefield after Extort resolves, so he will not gain counters.

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


text:
What is the use of Swift Silence?
So I have a red blue Guttersnipe deck that I personally love to use, but my friend and I keep running into this situation. In my hand for the purpose of explaining this say I have all Lightning Bolts and a Guttersnipe on the field. All he has available is a Swift Silence. Now since I know that he runs Swift Silence I will only play 1 lightning bolt in the ending phase before passing off priority. My friend will then also pass priority because he wants to stop the full combo with the Swift Silence.
So what happens?

Since he passed priority, Guttersnipe's ability which is on top of the
stack will resolve but the Lightning Bolt won't. So when I play another Lightning Bolt on the stack he can than use Swift Silence to counter both Lightning Bolts and Guttersnipe's ability?
Guttersnipe's ability resolves, I pass, then he passes again so the Lightning Bolt would resolve. I can than play another Lightning Bolt on top of the empty stack and start the loop over?
When we let both Guttersnipe's ability and Lightning Bolt resolve since it is a empty stack would my turn then be over since I was doing this on my end step?

However if I can just keep playing stuff using this loop what would Swift Silence ever be useful for other than say a Grapeshot?

As a side note, why would you do this during your end step? If you don't want to let your opponent untap, it's better to act during your main phase so that sorceries and permanent spells are still available options. And if you want to leave options open as long as possible, it's better to act during your opponent's end step so that you can have mana available as long as possible.

Assuming you play your Bolts right your opponent can counter at most 1 of them.
This is what happens:

You have priority, you cast Bolt, Guttersnipe triggers, you have priority again
You pass priority, your opponent gains priority and can cast their counter if they want to, eventually they also pass priority
Guttersnipes ability resolves, you gain priority, you pass priority
Your opponent gains priority, again they can choose to cast their counter, eventually they pass priority back to you
As long as it wasn't countered your Bolt resolves. You gain priority after it resolves and can cast another Bolt if you want to.

If at anytime your opponent casts their counter the following is added to the previous steps:

They have priority, they cast their counter spell, they still have priority and pass
You gain priority, at this point you can choose to cast more spells if you want to, eventually you will pass priority
The counter spell will resolve, your Bolt will be countered, you gain priority and can cast more Bolts if you want to

A step or phase doesn't end until both you and your opponent have passed priority and the stack is empty.
As you point out Swift Silence is best against Storm decks, and other decks that have multiple spells on the stack at the same time (like Hive Mind)

116.3b The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves.
116.3c If a player has priority when he or she casts a spell, activates an ability, or takes a special action, that player receives priority afterward.
116.3d If a player has priority and chooses not to take any actions, that player passes. If any mana is in that player’s mana pool, he or she announces what mana is there. Then the next player in turn order receives priority.
116.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.

The short answer is that Swift Silence is simply not good in this situation.
First, note that Swift Silence only counters spells. Guttersnipe's ability is a triggered ability, not a spell, so it is unaffected by Swift Silence.
Your optimal strategy is to simply cast one Lightning Bolt at a time, and then let both the triggered ability and the Lightning Bolt resolve before casting another one. If you do that, then your opponent can only ever counter one Lightning Bolt with Swift Silence. In this case, your end step would play out like this:

You cast Lightning Bolt. Guttersnipe's ability triggers.
You pass priority. Your opponent either casts Swift Silence and you let it resolve, or they just pass priority.
Guttersnipe's ability resolves and deals 2 damage to your opponent.
You pass priority again. Your opponent has another opportunity to cast  Swift Silence and have it resolve, or they just pass priority again.
Unless your opponent cast Swift Silence in step 2 or 4, Lightning Bolt resolves and deals 3 damage to your opponent.
Go to step 1 if you have the mana.

If you can kill your opponent even if they counter one of the Bolts (for example, they're at 15 life and you have 4 Bolts in your hand and 4 available red mana), one variant to consider is going through that whole loop in response to the Swift Silence as soon as they cast it. This prevents them from drawing more countermagic from the Swift Silence.
In general, Swift Silence does best at stopping storm spells like Grapeshot or Tendrils of Agony. It can also be good at cleaning up a countermagic battle and drawing extra cards in the process. Especially in a multiplayer game, you can let two opponents respond to each others' spells a few times, and then stop it all with Swift Silence and draw several cards.

You have the advantage, since your third point is incorrect.  When the stack is empty, if both players pass priority, then the phase ends. So, what you do is let Guttersnipe and the Bolt both resolve, then cast another one when you get priority again.

500.2. A phase or step in which players receive priority ends when the stack is empty and all players pass in succession. Simply having the stack become empty doesn’t cause such a phase or step to end; all players have to pass in succession with the stack empty. Because of this, each player gets a chance to add new things to the stack before that phase or step ends.

One other issue with your scenario is that Swift Silence doesn't counter Guttersnipe's triggered ability. That's an ability, not a spell.


text:
Has there been known of a board game that co exists with a GM?
I was curious to know if there was a RPG themed boardgame (or a RPG in a box)
that could use GM's as a primary mechanic, or just in there.
Kinda like to GM as much as I like to play a board game doing both would be amazing, even if what you narrate is decided by dice or cards.
Would you know of any titles by any chance?
(the reason for mice and mystics is that its commonly known as a RPG in a box)

I think games like Descent is what you're looking for. It's a boardgame where a GM plays against a group of adventurers, and you can add as much roleplay as the group sees fit.
If Star Wars is your thing, Imperial Assault is basically Descent re-themed.

"Mansions of Madness" also falls under this category. When compared to Descent, Mansions have flawed mechanics but a more immersive narrative.
I would say that Descent is a light version Dungeons&Dragons and Mansions are a light version of Call of Cthulhu.

Your question is a bit vague.
A game like HeroQuest can be seen as RPG Light with limited rules. (And you could use the props with other RPG's).
A game like Aye Dark Overlord doesn't have a GM, but there is one player (the dark overlord) that needs to be pleased by the other players. So there is a bit of a narrator.


text:
Does lifelink still trigger if I concede before damage?
In a multiplayer game one of my opponents has a felidar sovereign and is at 39 life and I am at 2 life. He attacks me with a 2/2 lifelink creature, but before damage is dealt I concede. Does the lifelink still gain my opponent enough life to win with felidar sovereign at the beginning of his upkeep, thereby letting my other opponent lose the game or do I only lose and do my opponents still need to continue the game to determine who wins?

Related also: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/32736/in-multiplayer-can-a-player-concede-abusively/32737

Of course, you could have used lighting bolt on him and rob him of 3 life instead of just 2.

@GendoIkari Or the creature so you don't die and they don't win (yet)

@diego  I should have chosen something that could only deal damage to myself

@IvardeBruin Lava Spike can only target players if you want to change it

@diego it is a sort of duplicate so no need to change it anymore

The lifelinking creature does not deal damage, which means your opponent does not gain life, and the rest of the table will need to keep playing.


text:
Do creatures with summoning sickness count as tapped?
My friend played Sheer Drop (Destroy target tapped creature) and targeted a creature of mine with summoning sickness. Is a creature with summoning sickness considered tapped?

That possible duplicate is the canonical question about summing sickness; it gives the meaning of summoning sickness and you can pretty clearly see it doesn't include tapping the creature.

I'm voting to leave this one open; I think it's alright to have a related question clarifying that Summoning Sickness doesn't do a particular thing.

@doppelgreener Fair enough, though the reason we ended up with that question is that people think summoning sickness does a million different things, and those questions were all getting answered with "no, it just does X, here's the rule, that's it, it doesn't do what you're talking about".

If it helps, I added a note on the duplicate's answer addressing this question.


text:
How does Double-Strike work, is it comparable to Windfury in Hearthstone?
I am transitioning from Hearthstone to Magic. Some abilities sound the same but might not do the same thing.
Is double-strike equal to Windfury (Hearthsone)? Or does it only double strike a creature?
My question is: Does he only double-strike creatures? With no creatures on the battlefield from the opponent side can I double-strike him? If I kill his creature in the 1st strike is the 2nd strike directed to the opponent?

There seems to be some confusion about how combat works in MTG vs HS, I would recommend checking out the quick start guide for a quick overview of how the game works. A major difference between the two games is creatures do not attack creatures directly in magic, instead you declare which creatures you have will be attacking your opponent (or planeswalker), then they choose which creatures (if any) they will use to block and how they will block.

Combat with double strike works like this:

Declare attackers (i.e. the active player says what creatures they are attacking with).
Assign blockers (i.e. the defending player says which attackers they are blocking, and for each attacker which creatures they are using to block).

At this point, all attackers that have legal blockers assigned to them are considered to be blocked.  (A blocked creature cannot damage a player, unless it has trample.)

Assign "first strike" damage, i.e. any creatures involved in combat that have either first strike or double strike deal their damage.
Assign main combat damage, i.e creatures without first strike deal their damage.

So creatures with double strike actually deal their damage in two bursts. If the creature was blocked, then (in the absence of other effects), it can only deal its damage to the creatures assigned to blocking it.  This is true even if the blocking creature has already died - the attacking creature is still blocked, and will deal no more damage (Unless it has trample or a similar ability). If the creature wasn't blocked, then it deals its damage directly to the player (or planeswalker) that was being attacked.

I just wanted to thank the people who have added some clarifications to my answer to further address OP's question. You're doing good work.

"creatures without first strike deal their damage" Not entirely true, although this is nit-picking. In order to prevent shenanigans like giving a creature first strike between the two steps thus stopping it from ever dealing its damage, the official wording is closer to "creatures with double strike, along with any creatures which didn't deal damage in the first strike step deal their damage". Similarily, removing first strike from a creature between the two steps does not effectively give it double strike.

There are a couple excellent answers already, but I wanted to make some points to specifically compare double-strike with Windfury.  The main idea here is that Windfury gives you an extra attack with a minion, while double-strike changes how a creature deals its damage.

In Hearthstone, the attacker can choose a different enemy character to target with each attack of a windfury minion. With double-strike, you don't attack, let that attack finish, then attack again - there's just a single attack and block decision, and the damage is then dealt twice to whatever the creature is fighting (and as always in Magic, the defender chooses how to block and can block with more than one creature).  So no, if you kill a blocking creature with the first hit, the second one doesn't spill over to the player (unless the creature has trample or a similar ability).
With double-strike, the other creature only deals its damage once (unless it also has double-strike or a similar effect). This is different from Hearthstone, where hitting an enemy minion twice with a Windfury minion means you take damage from that enemy both times.
With double-strike, the other creature may die before it can deal its damage, because the first hit of a double-strike creature is first strike damage (first strike doesn't exist in Hearthstone).
Double-strike works when defending as well.  So if you block with a double-strike creature it still deals its full double-strike damage, unlike windfury which basically does nothing when it's not your turn.
Double-strike IS like windfury in that the creature/minion effectively deals damage equal to twice its power/attack. So an unblocked 2/2 double-strike deals 4 damage to the enemy player, just like if you hit the enemy hero with both attacks of a windfury minion in Hearthstone.  If blocked, a 2/2 double-strike creature will deal 4 total damage to the blocking creature, unless the blocker deals at least 2 points of first strike damage (which kills the attacker before it deals damage again).  This is similar to how you can hit a minion twice with a windfury minion, unless the enemy minion kills your minion in the first attack.

Just to get the official rules in here:
The details of adding or removing these abilities during combat are sometimes misunderstood.

702.4. Double Strike
702.4a Double strike is a static ability that modifies the rules for the combat damage step. (See rule 510, “Combat Damage Step.”)
702.4b If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike (see rule 702.7) or double strike as the combat damage step begins,
the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those
with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of
proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat
damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step
are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike
nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as
the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double
strike. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.
702.4c Removing double strike from a creature during the first combat damage step will stop it from assigning combat damage in the second
combat damage step.
702.4d Giving double strike to a creature with first strike after it has already dealt combat damage in the first combat damage step will
allow the creature to assign combat damage in the second combat damage
step.
702.4e Multiple instances of double strike on the same creature are redundant.

Related:

702.7. First Strike
702.7a First strike is a static ability that modifies the rules for the combat damage step. (See rule 510, “Combat Damage Step.”)
702.7b If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins,
the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those
with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of
proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat
damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step
are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike
nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as
the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double
strike. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.
702.7c Giving first strike to a creature without it after combat damage has already been dealt in the first combat damage step won’t
prevent that creature from assigning combat damage in the second
combat damage step. Removing first strike from a creature after it has
already dealt combat damage in the first combat damage step won’t
allow it to also assign combat damage in the second combat damage step
(unless the creature has double strike).
702.7d Multiple instances of first strike on the same creature are redundant

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


text:
Citadels: Can two Circus Tents be built in the same city?
In the latest German edition of Citadels, there is an action card Circus Tent. It is played from your hand without paying any gold (and in addition to your normal building action). It's text says:

You can put the Circus Tent in front of you. At the end of the game it counts as a building without points and without color. It cannot be destroyed by the Warlord.

Is it possible to have more than one of these in your city? This is not allowed for "normal" districts, but the card only states that it counts as a district at the end of the game.

Have the German base rules changed in the new edition? In the old edition, the Hans im Glück rules did not forbid the building of multiple identical districts, but the Fantasy Flight Games edition did.

I only have the new edition and there it is explicitly written, that each district may only be built once per city.

I would say technically yes, but that it wouldn't be as much of an advantage as it initially seems. Going from a purely literal interpretation of the rules you are right that the Circus Tent is an action and doesn't count as a building until the end of the game. That would lead me to say that during play having more than one is allowable. However, having two (or 3 as there are 3 in the deck) of your city elements leading to ending the game being worth no points and not counting toward any of your bonuses (except perhaps the 4 points for being the first to complete 8 buildings) seems to limit the usefulness of such a tactic. Especially since they would have been worth one point in your hand at the end of the game anyway.
With all that said, it is enough of a rules interpretation required issue that disallowing it would not be any sort of stretch either as it may very well have not been intended to be used that way regardless of how it was worded. Also, I think once this tactic is used in a game or two I believe it would be revealed rather quickly whether allowing this is unbalanced or not.

Thank you for your answer. The player who wanted to do this was not aiming for victory but wanted to end the game with a few extra points (without having any money). The game would have been over a round later anyhow.
Thanks also for pointing out, that action cards on the hand bring one point at the end of the game. I completely missed that when reading the rules. This makes (a little) less profitable.

To me, they have a single useful purpose -- they let a person accelerate the end of the game when they are currently ahead, but know that this won't last (or have strong suspicions it won't last).

I'd be inclined to say no for two reasons: first because allowing more than one of them seems to make them a bit too powerful; secondly, because unless the text on the card explicitly says you can build more than one of them, I'd suspect the intention should have been that no, you couldn't.

I also do not think that this was not the intention (and I do not really understand why one would want to play this card if it is not near the end of the game). But it seems that it is not really forbid by the rules.

I just noticed, that the rules explicitly allow multiple circus tents in one city.
It is also noted, that only one of them may be built in every players move (even if he is the architect), because only one action card per round is allowed.
Sorry for missing this when reading the the rules before.


text:
What techniques should I use to teach my 5-year old to play chess?
The other night while playing checkers with my 5 year old, he told me that he wanted to make up a game using the checkerboard which had different pieces that could do different things. I told him that there was a game already like that called chess. So I got out the pieces and we went through them and talked about what their names were and how they move and he seemed to enjoy it.
My question is, are there any techniques or simplified rules or setups that can help teach the game of chess?
I was thinking of setting the board with only pawns and kings and playing a game. Then adding in the rooks and playing, add the knights and play until we have all the pieces. What do you think?
Any other ideas or suggestions?

I think the answer also depends on what you want out of this. A top level player or someone who is familiar with the game. Both require different efforts.

Also see http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4987/shorter-game-for-play-with-kids.

I highly suggest taking him through the puzzles in Polgar's book.
The book starts off with very simple chess problems, with only a handful of pieces, with the idea of "solve for checkmate in x moves".  The problems are designed with a logical progression, highlighting specific tactics and strategies, and become increasingly complex and demonstrating more advanced concepts that build upon lessons learned from earlier puzzles.  Polgar used the puzzles in this book to teach his daughters, who each became grandmaster players in their own right.

The book itself is not targeted at teaching young children though, or is it?

The book is just a list of puzzles.  The puzzles at the beginning work on solidifying a grasp of how the basic pieces move, and gradually increase in complexity.  It assumes that you know how the pieces move, but that's really it.  It should work fine with a 5 year old, if you start at the beginning, and can keep their interest.

Yours is a good idea: introduce him to the pieces gradually (though not too gradually - five-year olds learn fast!).
Here's another one:  to make sure the rules of moving stick, place a piece on the empty board before each game, and ask him to point out all the spaces that piece can move to.
After he's got that down (a few days/weeks, depending on how often you play), set up actual positions, point to a piece, and ask him what squares that piece can move to (including captures).
After that, set up simple positions where the king is in check, and ask him if it's checkmate or not.
A good beginners book which has lots of "checkmate-or-not?" examples is Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess (which was not actually written by Bobby Fischer).
Make sure you play actual games with him between exercises.  And don't forget to introduce castling and En Passant (I mention this because many beginners do not even know about these rules).
And don't forget the most important thing:  make sure he's having fun.  Losing is never fun, so take it easy on him for now.

To make the game more even, so You don't win all the time, You can start f.i. without your queen. (That's how my dad taught me...)

@erikH, Although I agree that it is a good idea to start with a piece down, I think it is better to play with all pieces and get into the habit of notating and analyzing games. I know I was notating when I was 7 (I started that year), so at 5, that should not be an issue.

@picakhu 5 is not 7, and the writing ability may not be there yet, same as various other cognitive abilities...

I am teaching an 8-year-old right now. He is so competitive that he was immediately addicted. We play with all the pieces. I think this is fine because he wants to feel he's being challenged and playing like an adult. When he wants to move a piece, and isn't sure what his legal moves are, he just asks me, and we talk through which moves are a good idea and which are not. I let the game go for a long time so he can have fun moving the pieces and taking the pawns. He has quickly developed a good sense of cause and effect, and knows not to move his pieces into the path of opponent pieces.
Before or after a game we often go over the legal moves for each piece with an empty board, or we set up one of the positions that occurred during the game and talk through it again.
There are good chess books out there that are written for kids. I just ordered [Chess for Children].1 This book would probably work fine for a 5-year-old, with an adult reading along. The boy I'm teaching had some difficulty with handling the little pieces of my book-style wooden set. He would also get so excited sometimes that he would knock the pieces over. So I got him a cheap vinyl tournament board and triple-weighted plastic pieces. This larger board and pieces is much easier for him.
The hardest concept seems to be checkmate. As in "I watch movies and play video games where it's kill kill kill, and now you want me to just keep this guy from moving?!" It's a very adult concept, and probably a good one for kids to learn.
I think the biggest thing at that age is to just keep it fun. If you can keep him playing, you are doing wonderful things for his critical thinking and spatial skills. He is learning how to think ahead, and he is developing a nuanced model for human interactions, including conflict and consequences.

Go get Emanuel Lasker's Manual of Chess (there is a modern version with modern notation). It is an old book and definitely as a full book too detailed for a 5 year old, but the structure it offers to teach chess would be a very solid one for you to use with your son.
In particular it does a bit of what others have suggested but in a more formalized manner - it STARTS with the endgame (how to checkmate with just a few pieces), builds up to the middlegame (tactical decisions in a given position) and only towards the end of the book does it cover opening - what to do, how to think about the opening, how to make decisions (Lasker isn't a fan or proponent of memorization in the opening).
For a 5 year old I would suggest starting with puzzles with just a few pieces in various endgame positions - that teach him how each piece moves and how to win the game. Then I would move into other puzzle like middlegame positions along with starting to play full games. My grandfather taught me at a similar age by playing without his queen - but I wouldn't suggest this technique.
The keys are - play with him, have fun with it and mix up puzzles with games (based on what he is interested in paying attention to). Don't focus on the dull aspects of chess (memorization of openings) - instead focus on teaching him how the pieces move and start to teach him to think strategically - to look forward a few moves and start to make decisions about what to move based on likely outcomes many moves ahead.

For a child that young, I'd suggest No Stress Chess.  You begin by taking a card each turn that describes one of the pieces and how it moves.  You then have to move one of those pieces.  You win when you capture the opponent's king.
Once the child gets the hang of how all the pieces move, there are transition games giving you more autonomy until you graduate to regular chess.

I taught all my kids chess this way, starting at age 5, and they all very much enjoy the game.

My question is, are there any techniques or simplified rules or setups
  that can help teach the game of chess?

Not really. He has to learn how each piece moves, What is the starting position, then how to check mate, then some openings.

I was thinking of setting the board with only pawns and kings and
  playing a game. Then adding in the rooks and playing, add the knights
  and play until we have all the pieces. What do you think?

Sounds good, but it is better to learn how each piece move.

Any other ideas or suggestions?

If you are bad teacher (like me), then I suggest you to get a book, and start reading it to your kid.

At that age they will have a bit of trouble just figuring out how pieces move. It will take a few games for them to remember it. In games with kids that are too young to quickly grasp how pieces move I simply make sure that on nearly every move I have a piece available for them to take (for free), and the problem I pose to them is which piece they can take and how.
When they have that clear in their mind, which may take more than one game, then it naturally transitions into things like "you can take this piece, but if you do then this other piece can take yours, this other piece is guarding that one".
Until movement and taking of pieces is transparent to them, they cannot really move forward.

Unlike GO, handicapping chess with missing pieces completely distorts the game; it is better to handicap on time. Buy a a chess clock, and use it for the game. Give yourself 5 minutes for a game, and give your son 60-75 minutes or more. This will give him a chance to actually win (because you are under such time pressure). From the start let him know that whenever he wins twice in a row, you increase your time by 1 minute for future games.
Nothing in his small world will compete with the thrill of his first victory against Dad; with the first victory against Dad at 30 minutes; and the first victory against Dad at even time.
Buy two small chess books on openings and combinations for yourself (not for him, hint hint, as that would be to much pressure) and leave them (in a book case or similar) where he can find them accidentally. Second hand books would be even better than new, so they look like old books of yours.
Prepare to be amazed at his progress.

A chess clock seems to add even more stuff that a child would have to learn, understand and keep track off...

Chess (as any other complex system) consists of: 1) Parts(pieces), 2) Interrelationships between them, 3) Goal/purpose. Seeing these interrelations  and understanding roles/functions pieces have when interconnected is the most critical skill to acquire early. The same way as a QB must develop a great field vision with the ability to quickly scan the field for open receivers, in order to instantaneously capture the current line-up of all players on the field, who is being blocked, who is open, etc.
These basic contacts are: a) attack (2 enemy pieces involved), b) protection (2), c) restriction (2), d) blocking/pin (3 pieces involved).
All the above contacts are linear in nature, two points on the line, mere geometry, and every 4-year old kid can see it easily.
This should be absorbed in the first few weeks until it becomes second nature to give you a great board vision where you see/feel board contacts almost unconsciously and with no effort (like QB). It is then a solid foundation to teach and learn all other concepts in chess (tactics, strategy, coordination of pieces, etc.).
I've dedicated my chess blog to issues of modern teaching and learning chess backed on recent findings in neuroscience and psychology.

Forks can involve up to 4 pieces, and knight movement is a bit more complicated than linear geometry. That aside, I'm not sure I'm seeing how this actually answers the question. Developing board vision is definitely important, but how do you teach a 5 year old to develop it?

I could not find anything about teaching young kids while scanning your blog.

The best training for playing chess is the game itself.
But if you want to "dumb down" the game, then remove the two sets of knights. Those are the pieces with "special" moves that are relatively hard to understand. The other pieces all move on straight lines and/or diagonals.
There's really no need to play with simplified rules. There are only five different kinds of pieces that can move in unique ways (six counting pawns). And your son did want pieces that can move differently.


text:
I'm searching for Ricochet Robots, travel version
Years ago I played a game similar to Ricochet Robots, but a single player travel version.
This game has a small board (something like 5x5 tiles) and several robot pieces.
It includes cards with puzzle configurations (about 100 I remember) that the player should solve.
The mechanics of the game are similar to Ricochet Robots (or a Zelda ice and blocks puzzle), where you move a Robot in one direction until it collides with another element. The objective is to get the robot to a selected position on the board.
I don't remember the name nor the company that made this game but I want to try it again. Does anyone know it?

I think I've played it or something quite like it... I'll rack my brains!

I'll trying racking my brains for years. ...umm...
note: it has more than 5 years.

The problem is I used to own this when I lived in Canada (someone got it me as a present), but I have since moved to the UK and left it thousands of miles behind me.  Such a game definitely does, or did, exist though!

Here's the game I think I was thinking of: LUNAR LOCKOUT
http://www.funagain.com/control/product?product_id=010971&reviews_show_all=Y

Here's how one of the reviews describes it:

This is a great little solitaire game. It's quite similar to Ricochet
  Robot in theme, but there are some important differences. There are no
  walls--not even around the edges. You must get your man to the center
  solely by bouncing him off robots. The goal-spot is always the red
  square in the center. Instead of random board and piece placement, you
  must solve puzzles as provided on cards. If you think these
  differences would make it more simple than Ricochet Robot, then you're
  in for a big surprise. The puzzles, especially at the top levels, are
  tear-your-hair-out difficult. Solutions are thankfully provided on the
  backs of the cards, but that's cheating. The components are very high
  quality. The robots all have their own 'look' beyond being different
  colors. The base of the board slides out nicely, has storage space for
  the robots and cards, and snaps together snugly. My only complaint is
  that I'd like to see an expansion set soon with new puzzles to solve.


text:
Board game boxes
It seems like most commercial board games come in the same kinds of boxes.  Where can you buy such boxes (without labels already on them)?

You probably need to contact a boardgame manufacturer, or prototyping service. Would probably run you about $2 a box.

Board Game Design
Print and Play productions
Speilmaterial.de

For the US, check the Container Store. They certainly have simple boxes that work for prototypes.


text:
What happens if I cast Green Sun's Zenith while Grafdigger's Cage is on the battlefield?
Grafdigger's Cage doesn't prevent me from casting Green Sun's Zenith from my hand, but what happens if I do?

Two important comp. rules here:

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can't happen, the "can't" effect takes precedence.
609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

So you'll search your library for a green creature cost with converted mana cost X or less, do absolutely nothing with it (since you cannot, due to Grafdigger's Cage) and leave it in your library, then shuffle your library, then shuffle Green Sun's Zenith into it's owner's library.
This allows you to shuffle Green Sun's Zenith into your library for G, which might be handy/relevant in some obscure case (possibly against mill decks?).

It is also important if someone somehow flashes in a Grafdigger's Cage while GSZ is on the stack.

So, do you still get the creature into your hand, you just have to play it again?

@DForck42 no, there's no effect that allows you to put the creature from your library into your hand. You get to search your library for a creature and do nothing with it.

OK, so the creature just gets dumped into the graveyard.  You might add that for clarity (because it wasn't clear to me)

@DForck42, I don't think the creature goes into the graveyard, because it isn't countered. I think it just gets shuffled into the library with the Zenith.

@DForck42 Nope - there's no effect that allows you put the creature into the graveyard, either.  The creature does not change zones - you get to find a creature in your library and literally do nothing with it, leaving it in your library when you shuffle it.

@IanPugsley oh....  yeah you definitely need to add that little detail, please

Shuffling your deck is also useful if you know what the top card is and don't want to draw it (because you think you can get something better)


text:
Do I lose resources when buying 4th plant in Power Grid?
I won the auction for a new Power Plant. I already have 3, so I need to get rid of one of them. Can I put resources from the plant I'm discarding on the plant I just bought? Do I need to store them for the duration of "transfer" on one of the plants I'm not getting rid of? Or do I lose resources when discarding the plant?

You may keep the resources, as long as the new plant can store them. According to the rulebook:

When a player buys a fourth plant, he must discard one of his other power plants. The player may move resources from the discarded power plant to his remaining three power plants, if they match the resources used by one or more of the retained power plants.


text:
Worldfire order of events
Say I have a
Keldon Marauders  on the battlefield. The card reads:
When Keldon Marauders enters the battlefield or leaves the battlefield, it deals 1 damage to target player.
I then cast Worldfire.
Exile all permanents. Exile all cards from all hands and graveyards. Each player's life total becomes 1
I assume Worldfire would resolve first and the players' life would be set to 1, then Keldon Marauders would leave the battlefield and deal 1 damage to a player?

Not quite.
You're wrong about Keldon Marauders leaving the battlefield after each players' life is set to 1. Worldfire's instructions are done in order [CR 608.2c], and "exile all permanents" comes before "each player's life total becomes 1".
You're right that you will win the game, but it's because the triggered ability is only placed on the stack after each players' life is set to 1. Specifically, triggered abilities are only placed on the stack the next time a player would get priority [CR 603.3], not when they are triggered [CR 603.2]. Noone gets priority until after Worldfire has finished resolving.
The following is a breakdown of what happens:

You cast Worldfire.
Worldfire resolves:

Exile all permanents. Keldon Marauders's ability triggers. [CR 603.2]
Exile all cards from all hands and graveyards.
Each player's life total becomes 1.

Keldon Marauders's ability is placed on the stack targeting your opponent. [CR 603.3]
Keldon Marauders's ability resolves: Keldon Marauders deals one damage to your opponent.
SBAs are performed: Your opponent loses the game for having non-positive life.

The relevant rules are:

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

603.3. Once an ability has triggered, its controller puts it on the stack as an object that’s not a card the next time a player would receive priority. [...]

@user1873, Even though he can target any player, he has to pick one, and the one he picked was his opponent. Otherwise, his opponent won't die. Your edit made no sense since step 5 become incorrect, and it stopped demonstrating how the OP could win. Reverted.

The OP never uses the word opponent. Your answer might give the impression that an opponent must be chosen. You can choose to correct your answer, or leave it as is (if my correction contained an error, you could have fixed it as well), it's your choice.

@user1873, By your logic, I should change it to "a player casts Worldwake". No, I'm describing a scenario, I'm not describing a card. It's an example, an in examples, specifics must be picked. And the player in my example thought it was a stupid idea to kill himself, especially when he was trying to demonstrate how to win.

Yes.
According to Worldfire's Gatherer rulings:

These actions are performed in order, but no triggered abilities resolve in between them and no player may cast spells or activate abilities in between them. This means that if a permanent's ability triggers on a player losing life, that permanent will be exiled first and won't be on the battlefield when your life total becomes 1. Leaves-the-battlefield triggers won't resolve until you're done resolving Worldfire entirely.

So Worldfire resolves completely, leaving everyone's life total at one, then the leaves-the-battlefield trigger of the Keldon Mauraders resolves and deals one damage to the targeted player.


text:
Is it ever advantageous to pretend to be the "hidden" team if you are on the majority team?
According to this BoardGameGeek post, it is never advantageous for a “good” character to pretend to be part of the “bad” team in a social deduction game.

every. single. time. you explain these kinds of games, you need to hammer the point home that it makes absolutely no sense to pretend you're a spy/fasist/werewolf/whatever when you're in fact a villager/good guy/liberal.

Talking specifically about The Resistance and The Resistance: Avalon (since they are more or less the same game), the "hidden" Loyalists are expected to pretend to be Resistance members and the "hidden" Evil characters are expected to pretend to be Good characters, respectively.
Is it ever advantageous to pretend to be on the a Resistance member and pretending to be a Loyalist, or being a Good person and pretending to be Evil? Or is this person correct: it is never worthwhile?

It never makes sense in the short run; at best you lose trust and possibly get eliminated. I'm trying to think if there could be an advantage to doing it game after game.

I would never play a second game with someone who intentionally acted bad for some sort of "game after game" advantage (presumably to increase their win percentage as an actual spy). It's a team game, and everyone on the team has to try and win this game!

Also @ikegami, there is no elimination in the listed games.

@The Chaz 2.0, There is in Werewolf ...ah, they limited the scope to be more restrictive than the quoted comment.  And yeah, I meant to add "...if you get invited to those games" to my original comment. :)

The only players you would be fooling are your teammates. That can never give your team an advantage.

@Steve B, Isn't there a "dark" character in Avalon that doesn't know their treammates?

@ikegami I was addressing The Resistance, Werewolf and similar games. I should have specified that I am not familiar with Avalon. Sorry for the confusion.

@Steve B, You're apparently not familiar with Werewolf and Secret Hitler either :) (IIRC, Werewolf has a collaborator that doesn't know who's a werewolf, and Hitler himself doesn't know the other Fascists if the game has a certain number of players).

@ikegami It occurred to me after posting my last comment that none of those are relevant here. The question was whether a good player should ever act evil. Almost all evil characters will act good except when their actions are secret.

@Steve B, It disputes your claim that "The only players you would be fooling are your teammates."  One could also "fool" those on the other team that don't know their teammates.

That makes sense. It's not that the "fooler" is one of the ignorant minority; it's that the fooler could trick the ignorant minority.

Specific games can differ, but generally in games like these the "bad team" all know the members of the bad team. Therefore pretending to be a bad guy only decieves your allies, and convinces everyone that you are their enemy.
Neither of those will help you. You're harming your allies' ability to make accurate judgments while not affecting your enemies, and you're making our so that no one will listen to you.

As has already been pointed out in most of these types of games the bad side already knows who is on their team so the only people you will fool is the people on your team.
However a key point that was not mentioned in a lot of these games it is also against the for a good player to do to much for the evil side. For example in the resistance series of games the key thing a player can do is to vote to succeed or fail a mission. Good players only have the option to vote for success while bad players can vote for either. If at any point a good player does vote for failure the good team instantly losses the game.
Now that being said the key thing to remember about the evil team knowing who all the evil players are is that they can easily setup a situation where a good player pretending to play evil can end up making one or more evil players look good which will easily help evil win.
As note to that there are cases where I have been playing those games on the evil side and made a mistake to out myself as evil and when that happens I have been able to turn that to my advantage by focusing my attention on a good player who looked evil and working to make them look even more evil which ends up making some evil players look good.

"However a key point that was not mentioned in a lot of these games it is also against the for a good player to do to much for the evil side."  -  I'm pretty sure there is one or two grammatical errors in this sentence, but I'm not sure what the original intent was.

Talking specifically about The Resistance and The Resistance: Avalon, is it ever advantageous to pretend to be on the bad team if you are on the good team?

Yes, in fact the whole point of the game is that the evil Resistance has the Loyalists so outnumbered that the Loyalists have to pretend to be part of the Resistance. In the standard game, one would to work had to contrive a situation in which it is beneficial to a Resistance member to pretend to be a Loyalist. For instance, if you think the Loyalists have forgotten who the other Loyalists are, or you'e worried that one of the Resistance will try a "let's intentionally send Loyalists on a mission to expose them" strategy. With standard assumptions about other players, it does not make sense for the Resistance to pretend to be Loyalists.
In Avalon, it's more complicated, as both teams lack complete knowledge about who is on their team. This makes situations where it's advantageous for Merlin's team to pretend to be on Mordred's slightly less contrived, but still unlikely.

I apologize for being imprecise by saying the "bad" team. Yes, the Loyalists are expected to pretend to be part of the Resistance. My intended question was "Does it ever make sense for the Resistance member to pretend to be a Loyalist". I've changed the question to clarify

I disagree that the resistance side is considered evil. The entire point of the game is to take down a malignant government.As for avalon it is only if you play with certain special cards that the evil side doesn't have full knowledge but even then it is bad for good person to be considered evil by their teammates.

I think whether the story aspect of the Resistance being evil is irrelevant to the question, especially after I edited the question to refer to them as the "hidden" team and the "majority" team.

This has happened in my matches. When someone is resilient but simulates being a spy, the game is completely messed up, especially if there are roles that do not absolutely know the loyalty of certain people.
So yes, the person who is good should NEVER pretend to be evil, because it will not bring any advantage to your team, only confusion!

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


text:
What are the changes in the second edition of Doctor Who: The Card Game?
I own the original edition of Doctor Who: The Card Game, published in 2012 by Cubicle 7. What is new in the second edition, published in 2014? Is it just different companions and such on the artwork? Or are there mechanical changes?

It appears that the majority of the game mechanics are the same, except for the addition of a two-player variant.  The major additions are new cards featuring more of the new Dr. Who universe, which themselves feature different abilities.  The 1st edition covers only the Eleventh Doctor (Matt Smith), whereas the 2nd edition expands this to the 9th-12th Doctors.

The FAQ page for the game says there is a new version of the rulebook, but does not indicate any game mechanics changes:

What’s different about the second edition?
Doctor Who: The Card Game second edition features the same great game as the first edition. We’ve tidied up some of the rules text and put in some more examples. There are rules for playing with 2 players, too.
More importantly, we’ve added in loads of new cards, from the Ninth and Tenth Doctors to Rose and Martha, Clockwork Robots to Ironsides and a whole bunch of new locations, like Royal Hope Hospital (now on the surface of the Moon).

The FAQ also indicates that the rules for the second edition are compatible with the cards from the first edition:

I already own the first edition – do I need to buy the second edition?
Of course not! Your game will still be just as much fun as it always has been. If you want to carry on playing you can do just that – in fact, you can download the new rulebook here, if you like.

...and even suggests shuffling the two editions together to form "one super deck."
As for the new cards themselves, the FAQ suggests that they are not just reskins of the cards from the first game:

Can I still blow up the Dalek Flagship with a Jammy Dodger?
But of course! It’s our favourite trick. You can also turn the tide of battle with an Ironside or escape in the Valiant when the going gets tough, and many more new tricks besides!

This BoardGameGeek post has the following details about the card changes:

[T]he 1st Edition has 65 cards that do not appear in the 2nd Edition. The Starting Locations are all different. There are 12 enemies that didn't make it to 2nd Edition (18 cards). Some of the duplicated Defenders have been replaced in 2nd Edition with 4 different companions. Eight of the Support cards are different. All of the Location cards are different.


text:
How can I make a Crisis game go faster?
I've played a couple games of Crisis Mode from the Crisis Expansion (Pack 1) of the DC Comics Deck-Building Game with one, two, and three players. While we like the cooperative mode of it (it always seemed weird in the base game that the heroes were competing against each other), the biggest issue we have is that the game takes so long. While the base game takes about 45 minutes, the Crisis Mode has never taken less than 2 hours (and once almost made it to 3 hours).
The main reason it takes so long of course is that we have to go through so many villains and their crisis events. If we reduce the number of those, then the game would be faster but would be easier because it means you're less likely to run out of the deck cards. So I'm not sure that this is feasible.
What houserules can we employ to make Crisis Mode take an hour or less without reducing difficulty?

I know that this is an old question, but how about this suggestion?
The main complaint that I am reading here is that the crisis and villain stacks are too large for a normal paced game. How about cutting all stacks in half, or maybe just the crisis, villain, and main deck in half?
In a normal game (non Crisis), we do not see every card in the main deck. By the time we are about half way through the deck, someone has culled their deck enough to kill the super villain every or every other turn.
For Crisis, if you simply remove half of the main deck after shuffling, and half of the rest of the cards, then the game should be just a difficult, but will be faster.
When we do Crisis, it is a lot of luck. If we get stuck with something that requires everyone to destroy a defense or attack card at the same time, then we could go through half of the deck before we see another defense card. Then we need to wait for the player without one to get enough power to purchase it. Then we need to wait for that player to go through their deck and draw it. Removing half of the deck would not reduce this luck factor, and could help speed up the clock for those games where you just had bad luck with the randomizing of Crisis cards.

No worries about this being an old question; new answers are always appreciated if the existing answers are inadequate! Do you do anything to deal with the fact that splitting the main deck in half may prevent you from including cards that are necessary to defeat crisis cards? I could see this being a problem with, for instance, Final Countdown requires you to discard cards with costs 1-7. But if you don't have any 7 cost cards in your half of the deck, it can't be completed. Same with if there are three times more Villains than Heroes, and you get the crisis that requires Heroes to beat.

We would chalk that up to bad luck. We get stuck on so many of the Crisis cards anyway with a full deck, that failing 1 time because of this wouldn't matter to us. We have run through half of our full deck on 1 crisis many times. Those situations ultimately result in us losing, anyway.

Okay, thanks. I didn't know if you tried to do something like building the deck while ensuring there were X random Villains, Y random Heroes, etc.

We have done that with other variations and crossovers. But, not with Crisis. When combining 2 main sets, we would shuffle each type together and take half of each combined type to form our main deck. Or, we would set all of them in their own stacks, go around the table, and have each player pick which set they wanted a given type from (Heroes from heroes, Villains from base, Equipment from base, Super Powers from heroes, Locations from base). That gives some nice variety, and if using a deck with high combo potential, allows each user to either enhance or diminish that potential.

One thing that my friends and I do is take out cards that we don't like. When you have multiple sets combined, chances are that nobody will like seeing a Martian Manhunter or Suicide Squad. Edit the deck to take out cards that nobody wants to buy, so that people are always getting what they want.
After you edit the main deck, you can also play with a house rule for people to destroy a card from the main deck while in the line-up instead of gaining it. That way, later in the game when you want to be buying 5+ cost cards, you can just get rid of the lower cost cards and move on.

I think that paying to destroy a card rather than gain it would make a Crisis game more difficult, since you're going through the main deck faster, which is your countdown clock. Also, I don't think that Crisis is intended to be used with multiple sets like you say. I always thought it was either the base game or Heroes Unite and one of the Crisis expansions, since otherwise you have too many cards in your countdown deck.

You can also choose to not destroy it. It doesn't strictly make the game more difficult. I feel that it just gives you more options without making the game too easy.

The question was asking about how to make the game go faster, and I don't think that this answer really addresses that. I'm not looking for more options, I'm looking for a faster game. I'm afraid I'm going to have to downvote the answer.


text:
What are on each of the faces of the dice in the US version of Yu-Gi-Oh! Dungeon Dice Monsters?
Yu-Gi-Oh! Dungeon Dice Monsters was a spinoff of the popular trading card game, which used the same iconic monsters, but instead was a tactical miniatures game featuring dice. The Japanese versions and the American version differed in the dice that were offered:

In the Japanese version, you could snap together squares to create the six-sided dice with whatever combination of faces you wanted (Six Level 4 Summoning crests? Go for it!)
In the American version, the dice were all premade and non-customaizable, coming in four different colors with each color apparently having in a different combination of faces

I'm trying to reconstruct the game, but don't have the dice from the American set. What are on each of the faces of the different dice? I've seen a few images on BoardGameGeek, but so far can't tell what is on all of the faces of the American dice.

What are on each of the faces of the different dice?

I found this Dungeon Dice Monsters page on the Wiki. There, it is specified each of the possible symbols and their meaning. The specific term used in the game is 'Crest', and you roll the dice to gather specific kinds of Crests to interact with the game.
Edit: I also found the official ruling in case it helps as reference.
Worth mentioning that there are 4 kinds of dice, one for each possible monster level (1-4). Each dice has faces depending on the level they are (usually, the higher the level the less Summon Crests on the dice).
To summarize it here, the possible Crests are:

Summon Crest (star symbol): These crests are used to summon monsters. There are 4 kinds of monster levels, and thus Summon Crests for each level. The higher the level the harder is to achieve a summon. This is because Lvl 1 dice have 4 sides with Summon Crests, but Lvl 4 dice only has 1 side with Summon Crest.
Attack Crest (swords symbol): This Crest enables summoned monsters to attack. You need one Crest per attack, and a monster can only attack once per turn.
Defense Crest (shield symbol): This Crest helps monsters to defend themselves from attacks. Basically, the Defense Crest subtracts Attack from the attacking monster and then calculation proceeds.
Trap Crest (umbrella corp-ish symbol): Used to activate some monsters' effects when attacked.
Spell Crest (thunder symbol): Similar to Trap Crests, these are used to activate monsters' abilities.
Movement Crest (arrow symbol): Used to move your monsters across the board. One Movement Crests can move a monster one square (unless it is a Flying monster, which use 2 per square).

Regarding the content of the dice faces. On this wiki page we have, emphasis mine:

No matter what version is played, the amount of summon crests is the same for all dice across a given level. Level 1 dice have four summon crests per die, Level 2 have three, Level 3 have two, and Level 4 have one. They all have other crests on the remaining sides.

Here is an image taken from the linked ruling booklet that specifies what is the content of each face of each dice level:

In text:

Lvl 1 Dice (Red): 4 Summon Crests, 1 Movement Crest, 1 (x2) Defense Crest
Lvl 2 Dice (Blue): 3 Summon Crests, 1 (x2) Movement Crest, 1 (x2) Attack Crest, 1 Spell Crest
Lvl 3 Dice (Yellow): 2 Summon Crests, 2 Movement Crests, 1 Attack Crest, 1 (x2) Trap Crest
Lvl 4 Dice (Green): 1 Summon Crest, 1 (x2) Movement Crest, 1 Attack Crest, 1 Defense crest, 1 (x2) Spell Crest, 1 Trap Crest.

@Thunderforge there you go, included dice color. Source, the picture you linked on bgg :)


text:
Does the team get points if the word is singular but they guess plural?
In Taboo, one player has a word that they are trying to get their teammates to say (e.g. "Apple") within a short amount of time. I have often found that teammates will guess the plural word when they are trying to get the singular word (e.g. "Apples") or vice versa.
Some players I have played with have said that this is acceptable while others have said that the answer is not correct unless the correct form is guessed (e.g. after the team says "Apples", the player must tell them that them need to say the singular form of that word).
My version of Taboo (2012) doesn't say one way or the other which view is correct. So does the team get points if the word is singular but they guess plural?

I agree with @MazelTov that many people probably allow derivative forms as successful guesses, but I do not believe that was the intention of Taboo's designer. Some games may explicitly allow forms of the guess word, but Taboo is all about the WORD. It should be an exact match.
For reference, the rule for a successful guess is very concise when it refers to guessing the correct guess word:

SCORING A POINT Each time a teammate shouts out the correct Guess word, the Clue-giver’s team scores a point. The guessed card remains
  on the easel. The Clue-giver quickly draws another card and puts it on
  the easel in front of the already-guessed card(s). The number of
  guessed cards in the easel is the number of points the Clue-giver
  earns for his or her team.

That said, some people find this pure interpretation to be frustrating in actual gameplay. With that in mind, I think allowing for singular/plural is probably more acceptable than other derivatives (mountain/mountainous), but anything other than the actual guess word is a house rule. Naturally, house rules are intended to improve the gaming experience, so it's important to announce such rules at the start of play.

This is generally a house rule, but generally the widely accepted answer is that any form of the word is correct. You can't use the variation to change the word, e.g. , but other than that, knock yourself out!

Do you have anything to back up the claim that "generally the widely accepted answer is..."? I'm trying to find the correct answer since, as I stated in the question, some players accept one answer and others accept another. Also, this answer seems to contradict itself saying that it's a houserule but that most people say it's the proper way to play.

@Thunderforge I guess by "correct" you mean "as written in the rules"? That's certainly a question you can ask, but arguably it's not really a useful one. I would instead look for the best rule. Clumsy's answer essentially says this: the strict rule as written is that it has to be the exact word, but in practice that's pretty frustrating, so if you can agree with the people you play with to allow variants, you may have a better game. The designer isn't going to come after you if you tweak the rules; all that matters is that everyone who's playing knows what the rules are.

What if someone says, "apple pie"? That contains "apple", and "apple" is what you're looking for.
In my view, and I agree with @Clumsy's answer here, they have said the word - they've just added to it.
If added-to editions of the term are disallowed, which I do not think the rules do, then the game would be nearly impossible to accurately play and score.
Now, if the word was "mouse", and someone says "mice" - that needs to be corrected. Because they aren't the same word + an add-on.


text:
When should I stop retaliating?
This frequently comes up when I play Alien Frontiers: both the Burroughs Desert (for its relic ship) and the Holographic Decoys are hotly-contested commodities.  (Yes, it's a bit silly to use the Raider's Outpost to steal the Holographic Decoy so that nobody can use the Raider's Outpost on you except to steal the Holographic Decoy, but it's still a useful move if you have the alien artifacts that are worth victory points.) The trouble comes when I want one of those contested resources; each time I steal that resource, it's useful to me.  But if that guy over there is going to keep stealing it back, then it's a waste (and the other players will pull ahead).
So: in a 3- or 4-player game, when should I steal that resource back, and when should I decide I've wasted too much time?

In my experience, having six dice available is a powerful threat that your opponents should never ignore. Attempting to take and hold the Burroughs Desert, with its access to the cheap relic ship, will probably not be worth the cost under any circumstances unless your opponents are allowing you to get away with murder. Either judicious use of colony-moving artifacts (making the region a tie) or the Inderdiction Field should shut down the Burroughs Desert. Consider it a threat to make your opponents spend resources, not an opportunity in itself.
By contrast, the Holographic Decoy is a lot easier to steal successfully. It's wonderful to have, but you need to know if it's likely to be stolen right away. If there's another player at the table who will steal it just to have it... don't waste your own resources. Otherwise, take it if there's nothing you need more right now (maybe a low 1-2-3 with no way to steal resources you can use) and especially if you might be able to use its best power--to hold ore from turn to turn without it being stolen--in the next turn or two.
If you do grab the Holographic Decoy, try to get ore in the same turn if possible. It's less attractive to steal the Decoy if the next player will then have access to all your ore for cheap.

A very late thought: what if there are two Holographic Decoys on the table?


text:
Can I attempt to activate an equipment's equip ability without a valid target?
Say I have a Mycosynth Wellspring on the field and a Piston Sledge. The equip cost for piston sledge is "sacrifice an artifact". If I control no creatures, can I sacrifice the Mycosynth Wellspring to the Piston Sledge to benefit from its ability, or does the equip ability require a valid target in order to pay its cost?

No you may not, you need a target to activate the equip ability. Equip means from the Comprehensive Rules

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

Activating an ability is very similar to casting a spell, and most of the same steps need to be followed to activate an ability. If you cannot comply with all the steps, then you have performed an illegal action, and the game backs up the game state to just before that illegal action.

602.2. To activate an ability is to put it onto the stack and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. ... Activating an ability follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the activation of an ability, a player is unable to comply with any of those steps, the activation is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that ability started to be activated (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.

602.2b The remainder of the process for activating an ability is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2b–h.

This is the important step that you are incapable of complying with. You cannot announce a valid target for the equip activated ability.

601.2c The player announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each target the spell requires. ...

BTW, if you did have a single creature that the Piston Sledge was already attached to, you could sacrifice an artifact to Equip the Piston Sledge to the already equipped creature. If the creature was an Artifact Creature, you could sacrifice the creature to pay the costs of the activation since costs are paid after targets are chosen.


text:
In Bridge, what is the punishment for misclaiming tricks?
Down to the last two rounds in rubber bridge.  Declarer claims remaining tricks only to discover that he has miscounted.  He claims the two tricks with Q-10; however, opponent holds the J and depending on how he plays the cards could lose one trick.  How is this handled?  Is scoring affected?
Consider the same scenario only opponent holds the Q.  Do opponents just get the one trick and game is scored as usual?

Laying down your cards doesn't automatically end the hand: either opponent can ask to play it out, with you playing as you said you would.   So if an opponent has the Q of trumps, he will take it on the first trick, and then choose what to lead knowing what is in your hand; if that gives him an extra trick, so be it.  You can't be expected to play irrationally; so if the lead is in your hand, and you say 'Play trumps', it would be expected that you play the Q before the 10.  On the other hand, if the lead is in dummy, and you play towards the Q10  without specifying which, the opponents can ask you to play either. This is because, having seen all the cards, you can't choose whether or not to take a finesse.

A proviso on finesses: Declarer can take a finesse if (a) his LHO has shown out, either before or after the claim was made; or (b) the claim explicitly specified how and when such a finesse would be made (such as in an endplay).

@Pieter: Certainly a claim may include taking a finesse (as I mentioned). But LHO showing out after the claim is made is the very situation where you are not allowed to decide whether or not to finesse. Bear in mind also that this is rubber bridge (and may or may not be in the US), so the ACBL has nothing to say to it.

Careless wording in my comment above - Claimer must still address the possibility of a finesse in the statement of claim, such as with "If LHO shows out I finesse for the overtrick; else I throw  in for the endplay and just in."

The laws of Contract bridge try to achieve a result equitable to both sides (and not to punish), but in case of doubt, resolution might favour the non-offending side.
Laws 68-71 deal with claims (and there are alternative versions for the Club setting), and you can read about them here: http://web2.acbl.org/laws/rlaws/lawofcontractbridgecombined_2004.pdf (2008 version).
Quoting a paragraph from Law 69 (non Club, 2004 version):

The objective of subsequent play is to achieve a result as equitable
  as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point must be resolved in
  favor of the defenders. Declarer may not make any play inconsistent
  with the statement he may have made at the time of his claim or
  concession. If he failed to make any appropriate statement at that
  time, his choice of plays is restricted thereby:
[snipped]

I believe there is also a provision which allows declarer to follow a routine/rational line of play which does not contradict the plays specifically disallowed, in case the claim is rejected. Of course, there are quite a few subjective words in the laws which might lead to different resolutions by different directors.
Perhaps in your case, it would probably be irrational for declarer to play the 10 instead of Q and dropping the J.
Disclaimer (pun intended): I am not qualified to be a director, so what is written here is just my interpretation. (Though I did get a chance to talk to some directors about this in the past few years of playing and what I write here is influenced by those discussions)

All true, and a director would give a fair ruling based on the circumstances which we don't see.  But the question is specifically about rubber bridge, with no director.

@TimLymington: Yes, but you can "appoint one temporarily" or just choose to apply the laws in that case (but you still need an unbiased view, likely from a fifth person). Otherwise, the question is not really answerable IMO...

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2008 now available here: http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf

@PieterGeerkens: Thanks for the link! Updated the answer.


text:
If a player is forced to discard a card in which another card has a dependency, do they lose both cards?
In Rivals of Catan a player can be forced to discard buildings.  If a player chooses an Abbey, do they also lose their University (which has a dependency on an Abbey), or do they just lose the Abbey?

Hey Tyson, welcome to B&CG!

No, they only lose the first card.
There are no dependencies, only requirements that must be met in order to play the second card.
On Page 16 of the rules it states:

The Theme Sets introduce cards that have special requirements that must be met before you can play them.  The requirements may vary significantly - such as requiring the trade advantage or requiring that another building must already be in your principality.

Once the card is played and the requirement is satisfied, the requirement has no further effect on play.


text:
Are copied spells cast from the graveyard?
If you copy Increasing Confusion or any other "cast from the graveyard" spell with Increasing Vengeance, does the copy act like it was cast from the graveyard? Or, since the copy technically was not cast from the graveyard, would it just have the normal effect?

Your instincts are correct. Copies of spells are just placed on the stack, they are never cast.

706.10. To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it on to the stack; a copy of a spell isn’t cast and a copy of an activated ability isn’t activated.

Cards on the other hand, can be copied and cast. For example, if Increasing Vengeance was enchanted by Spellweaver Volute, the copy of the card would be cast from a graveyard.

@darch, corrected. Used the wrong card in the example

Basically, the copy appears in whatever zone the card being copied was in.

The copy a spell and cast a spell actions are distinct and unrelated. A spell created by Increasing Vengeance was created by a copy action, not by a cast action. If that spell was Increasing Confusion, its replacement effect doesn't come into effect since it wasn't cast (from the graveyard or otherwise). This is specifically covered by the rules.

706.10. To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it on to the stack; a copy of a spell isn’t cast [...]

Compare with Spellweaver Volute, which copies cards you then cast (from the graveyard).

Adjusted as recommended.


text:
Looking for a specific variant of Tic-Tac-Toe
I came across a nice variant of Tic-Tac-Toe game, but since I don't know the game, nor remember the exact parameters of the game, it is hard to find info about it, as existence of optimal strategies etc. The part where I'm not sure is the dimension of the grid, but I think it was 4x4 because of the nature of the pieces. Each pieces have four traits, 2 possibilities for each trait. For example, the traits of the game I saw were:
1: Height (Small or tall)
2: Color (White or black)
3: Shape (circle or square)
3: Fillness (Filled or with a hole)
Most likely all 16 possible pieces were present. Now here is how the game is played:
Player A has the white pieces, player B has the black one. On player's A turn, he gives one of his piece to player B and player B decides where he puts it. He then gives one of his (B's) piece to A and A places it where ever he may wants. This keep going on until a player places a piece that gives a Tic-Tac-Toe, a Tic-Tac-Toe being 4 aligned pieces that possess a same traits.
I hope I am making myself clear.

Thanks! I plan on making a course on games based around math and mathemagic trick. (not in in short time frame but eventually) So I'm trying to get some ideas of games that could be interesting

You may be interested in Connect4 or GoMoku too.

Quarto! is the game you have in mind.

That's exactly it thanks. Do you know about strategies if they exist?

I do not, sorry. It has been a while since I have played the game.

@Jean-Sébastien - ask for strategies as a separate question.  I've played some Quarto in my day.


text:
What happens if the last Shadow and Hunter die at the same time?
What happens win condition wise if the last shadow and hunter where to die at the same time? This could happen if a dynamite was to go off and kill them both or a neutral had the machine gun and did enough damage to kill them both with one attack. Would this mean that both hunters and shadows lose or would it mean they both win?
Since Shadow have the win condition of all Hunters dead and Hunters have the win condition of all Shadows dead--they don't specify that at least one Shadow/Hunter has to be alive.

By a strict reading of the rules, the only requirement is that all of the opposing faction are dead, regardless of whether you or anyone else in your faction survived. Therefore, unless there is an official clarification to contradict it, all Hunters and Shadows win in this scenario.
Not much of a source, but this BGG thread agrees.
This would also mean that if a Hunter kills the last Shadow but also a third neutral at the same time, the Shadows would still win at the same time as the Hunters.


text:
What are the differences between the 2009 and 2011 reprints of Twilight Struggle?
I'm interested in getting a copy of "Twilight Struggle", having enjoyed "1960: The Making of the President" and seeing that the former is currently the top ranked game on BoardGameGeek.  It seems that there are two versions that are available to buy new at the moment:

The 2009 Deluxe Edition reprint.
The recently released 2011 Deluxe Edition, available from GMT games.

The slightly earlier reprint is rather easier for me to get hold of, but I'm having trouble finding out whether there are any significant differences between these editions.  Could anyone here give me an idea of how different the 2011 edition is?

As far as i can compare the specs on the GMT web site with my 2009 deluxe edition there are no differences.

Thanks for your answer.  I've actually also received an email from GMT games now confirming that the 2011 deluxe edition is a straight reprint of the 2009 deluxe edition.

Oh, but if I understood correctly, the 2011 edition comes with a mounted board which could be purchased separately to upgrade the 2009 edition.

The 2009 deluxe edition has a mounted board and I do not think they changed the map graphic again.

There is now 2014 reprint and it too appears to be exactly the same.


text:
Is it possible to lose Forbidden Island on the first turn?
My first time playing this game last night.  My friend that was teaching me had only played a couple times.  Despite a quick rules reading we wanted to verify this sequence that happened to us.

After the board was laid out, we flipped 6 tiles, among them Fool's Landing.
I took my turn, but was unable to Shore Up the Fools's Landing
Waters Rise!
Fool's Landing is drawn and discarded.
We lost.

With a quarter of the land cards drawn to start the game this seems like it would be a fairly common occurrence.
Did we miss a rule somewhere?  Are there ways to ameliorate this?

Starting off with Fools' Landing being flooded is certainly a set-back, but all is not lost!
Naturally, due to its crucial nature, if Fools' Landing does become flooded, shoring it up becomes a top priority. Your first option is to immediately move adjacent to Fools' Landing, if you can, and use an action to shore up. Failing that, any player can play a 'Sandbags' card to shore it up as a free action.
If, sadly, you can't move that far and no-one has any sandbags in their starting hand (as can happen easily in a two player game) - Fools' Landing is left somewhat vulnerable to a Waters Rise card, but even then it's not guaranteed that Fools' Landing is re-drawn and sunk.
Fortunately, it's pretty rare that you start too far away and have no sandbags and Waters Rise and Fools Landing is drawn - but if it does happen, take solace that your end was a quick one, and hope for better fortune next time.

You didn't mention how many players were in that game, but if I assume there were two, here are the probabilities of that happening to you:
Step 1 - Having Fools landing be flooded before the game starts - 25% (1 in 4)
Step 2 - Drawing a water rise card on your first turn (either 1st or 2nd treasure card) 24% chance - P(atleast 1 water rise card) = 1-(21/24*20/23) = 24%
Step 3 - Assumed you started with a water level of 2 - Having Fools Landing come up from the first flood- 33.33% (1 in 6)
Therefore for all those three things to happen exactly in that order with the assumptions made, it would only happen 1.98% of the time.
There you have it! If you started with more players, or it was the 2nd treasure card on the first turn, or you started the game on a water level of 3 let me know and I'll re-calculate :)

You might want to check out this question. The current answers are close, but not the same. If you provide your own answer, it might be clearer which answer is correct.

I removed your mention of your blog, feel free to add it to your user page here.  Thanks!

Further decreasing the probability below 1.98% is the fact that you have a reasonable chance of the first player being within 3 tiles of Fools' Landing (including the 1/6 chance of the first player being the Pilot, placing him/her on fool's landing). That makes it less than a 1 in 600 (0.1667%) chance of losing under those conditions. Of course, this answer covers this.

There's a typo at the end of the first paragraph (1 in 6) should read (2 in 6), but the edit function requires a minimum of six character change! You'll have to fix it yourself.

One way to alleviate the issue is to have the Pilot always take the first turn. Since they start on Fools' Landing, they can prevent the instant loss by shoring it up. In a 4-player game, you have reduced the chances by an additional 1/5 (in a 2-player game by 4/10).

I usually follow the Pandemic model when adding the Waters Rise cards so one doesn't show up the first turn. I create three equal piles after giving everyone two cards. Then I place one waters rise card in roughly the middle of each pile. I thought this was mentioned in the rules, but maybe I'm getting it confused with Pandemic.
Also what do you do if you draw two Waters Rise cards in a turn? Do you flip over double the number of land cards?

Its definitely not in the rules.  It's a bit different from Pandemic, where you would only go through the pile once.  Here you'll likely shuffle the deck a couple times during the game as well.  Each Waters Rise card is executed separately, so the second one just ups the counter without having any additional effect (which is much less painful than consecutive Epidemics in Pandemic causing an automatic outbreak).

Hah, we lost a game on the first round a different way.  Two of the six tiles initially flooded were the ‘gardens of the wind’ tiles plus a couple other ‘treasure’ redemption tiles.  First person shored up tiles close to them, none of which were the wind garden tiles. The first treasure card was waters rise and then the first two new floods were those ‘gardens of the wind’ tiles.  Game over before it had really begun and nothing involving the Fools Landing square which gets so much discussion elsewhere.


text:
Restrictions around promoting a pawn
I have tried to read the Wikipedia article but it is too confusing on what the current accepted standard is.
My questions are:

If a pawn makes it to the last row can they stay as a pawn?
If a pawn makes it to the last row can they be promoted to a piece that hasn't been removed from the board e.g. 2 queens or 3 knights on the board?

If the last question is yes, do people normally carry around multiple sets with the same pieces?

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6739/

Many sets of chess pieces have two queens of each color for this reason. (The other possible cases, like promoting to a third rook, would basically never come up in an actual game.) In a tournament, if you are going to promote to a piece that you don't have an extra instance of, you can stop the clock and ask the tournament director to provide one (from a different set).

No, a Pawn must be promoted to a Knight, Bishop, Rook, or Queen.
Yes, pawn promotion isn't limited to captured pieces.
My guess is that normal people don't carry around multiple sets of pieces, probably only tournaments. Most likely tournaments keep far more queens around than other pieces since promotion is usually to a queen (99% of the time).
The Wikipedia page says this (emphasis mine):

Promotion is a chess rule describing the transformation of a pawn that reaches its eighth rank into the player's choice of a queen, knight, rook, or bishop of the same color (Just & Burg 2003:16). The new piece replaces the pawn on the same square and is part of the move. Promotion is not limited to pieces that have already been captured (Schiller 2003:18–19). Every pawn that reaches its eighth rank must be promoted.

If you want a copy of the USCF's Rulebook: The Official Rules of Chess, 5th Edition (2003) that they are referencing though, it will cost you.
The FIDE has this in their rule book.

3.7e. When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate.
6.12 b. A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for
example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.

+1 In tournaments, when promoting a second queen when no second queen-piece is available, people will usually use an upside-down rook.  If there are no rooks available, you might have to pause the clock and ask a referee for a spare piece.  In casual play, if there's no rooks captured and I don't have an extra piece available from another set, I'll just take a penny from my pocket or something and say, "Remember, this is a queen."

There was an 1862 British Chess Association rule on promotion that did allow for a pawn to remain a pawn and there were unusual situations where this was beneficial. The ruling was also vague enough to allow you to promote to a piece of the other player's color. The official rulebook for an 1883 chess tournament dropped this rule to something similar to modern FIDE promotion rules.

FIDE doesn't allow an upside-down rook to serve as a queen, though the USCF does. If you try it in a FIDE tournament, your opponent is allowed to say "j'adoube" and turn the rook right side up.

Pawn promotion is mandatory and not limited to the pieces that have been captured.  User1873's answer covers the details well.
I wanted to answer the last part of your question in depth.  It is not necessary for people to carry around extra sets, although many players and almost all teams will have multiple sets available to them at a tournament.
In the vast majority of the cases, an extra set is not needed.

Most of the time pawn promotion (or the immediate threat of it) will lead directly to the opponent conceding.  One you reach a certain level of play, it is not fruitful to play out a game when you are down a queen.  In a tournament setting when you may be expected to play 4+ games a day, you can conserve your energy by conceding.  Grab a bite to eat, take a walk and come back stronger for the next game.  I've competed in both wrestling and chess tournaments.  While there is little threat of physical injury in a chess tournament, they are both exhausting to go through.
If the game continues, odds are that the queens will have been traded off earlier which means you have one available.  Just the nature of getting a pawn queened will mean that the game has gone on awhile, and is fairly even.  Queens tend to get exchanged.
If the queens are still on the board, the next best thing is a rook, flipped upside down.  This was used quite frequently when I was playing and I would expect that it is still a common convention.
If your queen and both rooks are still on the board and you need to promote a pawn, then you truly do need an extra queen!  If you don't have one available at a tournament, there should be plenty available nearby to borrow.

Little threat of physical injury in chess?  Not always...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing

I have also seen two captured (or the promoted) pawns placed down in a cross pattern to replace a queen if you need an extra queen. You would still have this issue if you haven't promoted any other pawns or otherwise lost a pawn.

No, yes and yes
Q1) Staying as a pawn would be inconvenient, I don't know the answer, but on computer games you can't .
Q2) Yes, or what's the point of the use
Q3) Lots of people promote pawns.