text:
Do I need to pay more mana to activate Outlast for other Sliver creatures in the card Enduring Sliver?

As shown in the card, you need to pay 2 additional generic mana to activate Outlast for this creature. but I was wondering about the second part that is referring to other Sliver creatures have outlast {2}. Should I pay {2} more generic mana in addition to the first {2} that were paid to activate Outlast for the creature itself? or Paying {2} generic mana for the first Outlast is enough to activate the second Outlast for other Sliver creatures?

No, Outlast {2} works the same for every creature that has it. If you activate Outlast on any of your creatures, it works on that creature and no other. It has no effect on or cost increase from other creatures with Outlast.
Enduring Sliver grants each sliver you control Outlast {2} through its static ability. This is true as soon as, and as long as you control Enduring Sliver. You don't have to pay anything for this to take effect.

604.1. Static abilities do something all the time rather than being activated or triggered. They are written as statements, and they’re simply true.

Outlast itself is an activated ability, which means it has a cost and an effect. When you pay the cost, the ability goes on the stack, and the effect only happens if and when the ability has successfully resolved from the stack.

602.1. Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]”

The mana cost to activate Outlast is not somehow cumulative, and activating one has no influence on others. Enduring Sliver's first ability grants "Outlast {2}" only to itself, the object represented by the card. What Outlast {2} means is briefly explained in the italicized reminder text in parentheses.
The second line grants Outlast {2} to all other Sliver creatures you control. On those creatures it works exactly the same as on Enduring Sliver itself: You pay {2} and tap the creature to put a +1/+1 counter on exactly that creature.
Assuming you control exactly one Enduring Sliver, each Sliver you control has exactly one instance of Outlast among their abilities, and they function entirely independent of each other.

If you have two Enduring Slivers, then every sliver you control has two identical outlast abilities. This is functionally identical to having one.

So tapping & paying {2} generic mana to activate Outlast 2 will grant it to Enduring Sliver & all other Sliver creatures. I can do this as much as I want (once every turn). Whenever my turn comes, I can tap Enduring Sliver then pay {2} mana to put a +1/+1 counter on Enduring Sliver and every other Sliver creature by just that? or is it that when I tap and pay {2} for Outlast {2} in Enduring Sliver [since after that moment every other Sliver creature will have outlast {2}] the other Sliver creature that I want to increase its P/T I have to tap it and pay another {2} for me to put for it +1/+1??

As soon as, and as long as Enduring Sliver is on the battlefield, each sliver you control has its own instance of Outlast 2 automatically as one of its abilities. To actually use (activate) Outlast, you have to pay 2 and tap the creature you want to use it on. Only the sliver you activate it for gets the counter.

As long as Enduring Sliver is on the battlefield, you can act as if every sliver you control has "You may pay 2 and tap this creature to give this creature a +1/+1 counter" in its text box. Paying 2 and tapping a sliver only gives that sliver a +1/+1 counter. It does not affect any of the other slivers. You cannot pay 4 and tap one sliver to give +1/+1 counters to two slivers. To give +1/+1 to two slivers, you have to pay 4 and tap both slivers.


text:
Enchanting a tapped land
When enchanting a tapped land using New Horizons can I still produce mana using it or do I have to wait for my next turn?
Knowing that the enchantment let's you produce 2 mana when tapping the enchanted land, since I enchanted a tapped land that already produced 1 mana, but can I produce 1 more mana after enchanted that tapped land that already produced 1 mana?
I'm not sure if can't produce any mana, produce 1 mana, or produce 2 mana.

You need to wait until the land untaps to get more mana from it.
Lands generally have abilities that allow you to tap them to produce mana. New Horizons gives the land a different ability that also allows you to tap it to produce mana. If the land is already tapped, you can't use any abilities that require you to tap it until it untaps.
Basic lands (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest) and other lands with basic land types automatically have an ability "{T}: Add {M}" where M is the corresponding color of mana, as a result of rule 305.6. Most other lands explicitly have similar abilities printed on them.

Might want to note that the rules add "{T}: Add {C}" abilities to lands with the subtype(s) Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest, with basics often just having a big {C} instead of a text box

@Caleth, based on questions like this, it comes to mind that the decision not to print the ability in full on basic lands must be one of the most confusing and misleading decisions made by game makers...

also could underline that they don't need to wait for the next turn in particular, just for the land to untap. If they can do that for one mana, then there's that one mana net gain available.

@ilkkachu I say that in bold in the first sentence. How much more emphasis do you think it needs?

You will need to wait until its untapped to get more mana from it.

You seem to be under the misconception that Basic Lands give mana when tapped. This is not accurate. Basic Lands give mana as the result of using their intrinsic activated ability. Using this ability requires tapping the land, but it's not tapping the land that gives the mana, it's activating the ability. For example, using Twiddle to tap a Basic Land would not generate mana.
In your scenario, the ability that granted the mana has long since resolved. There's nothing you can do now that will change the amount of mana it gave.
And the newly granted ability won't produce any mana until its activated. To activate the new ability, you need to tap the land, which you can't do if it's already tapped.
Either way, the new ability will never grant just one mana. The instructions clearly say you add two mana to your mana pool, not just one.

Worth noting the land will still have the existing intrinsic ability, the new one doesn't replace it, but since the removal of mana burn there won't be any situation where it's worthwhile to use the old ability - the land still CAN tap for one mana of that original single color.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Phase 10 “Skip” Card
Just read a rule concerning “Skip” card. You place the Skip card in front of player skipping. My question is, does next player have option of taking previous discard?

According to the rules at wikipedia, the Skip card is placed in the discard, not in front of the skipped player. Those rules also prohibit the drawing of a skip card from the discard pile. (So: no, the next player does not have the option of taking the previous card from the discard pile. Only the top card can be drawn, and the Skip card being on top precludes that.)

To use, a player discards the "Skip" card on their turn and chooses the player who will lose a turn.

A "Skip" card may never be picked up from the discard pile.

These rules match the rules given at the unorules Phase 10 page.

Related. There appears to be at least one version of Phase 10 Rules which describe putting the Skip Card in front of another player instead of the discard.

@GendoIkari yeah, I readily believe there exist rules that are divergent from the rules linked in my answer in that manner. But without a reference to the ruleset in question, it is difficult to ascertain how that divergent ruleset resolves this issue. I searched for combinations of words I could think of that might yield a link to such rules, but came up empty.

FWIW, The phrasing quoted in that related post: "chosen to skip instead of placing it on the discard pile" occurs nowhere else in Google's search results -- Google only returns that question.

I also found it in the rules for Phase 10 Twist: https://www.ultraboardgames.com/phase-10/twist.php

"also"? But sure, there are other games that might have that rule. But Phase 10 Twist is not Phase 10 (for instance, it has 3 discard piles instead of 1, so the question of "taking the previous discard" isn't going to come up, at least not formulated that way).

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


text:
Canasta: Can I open with a dirty Canasta without a natural and without points
Can I open with a canasta, JJJJJ22, without a  natural and without minimum card points?

Yes, you can.
From the rules:

The first meld made by each team during a hand is subject to some conditions. There are three possible ways to make a valid initial meld.

The Splash
If you have a natural canasta (seven natural cards of the same rank) or a wild card canasta (seven cards that are twos or jokers) in your hand, you may meld them as the initial meld for your team. In this case you do not have to meet any minimum count requirement.

Note that I am assuming this question is about Modern American Canasta, as such a meld would always be illegal in Classic Canasta (you cannot have a meld of only wild cards).


text:
Is there an online archive of the art for every draft booster pack ever printed?
I'm looking for an archive of high quality photos or scans of all artwork ever printed on a draft booster pack.
For example, the Mirage set had five (or more?) different booster packs printed.

Recent sets are fairly easy to find with a search engine but finding out how many variations old sets had can difficult. Finding decent images for these older sets can also be very time consuming.
Does such an archive exist online?

While there doesn't appear to be an online gallery, and Wizards may have something to say about one they didn't generate, someone did compile a file of the artwork up to 2013.  This may provide the help with the older sets you were lamenting.  https://www.slightlymagic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=9825


text:
Collectible figures with rotatable base
First of all, I hope that this is the correct community for this question, otherwise I am happy to be corrected.
I am looking for certain figures (of a game I think/suppose) that I saw around the year 2000 in germany (country might be relevant). The only information I remember (and therefore might be incorrect) is:

The prime feature to recognize/distinguish these figures should be the base they were standing on. It was black and white (or greyish - certainly not very colorful), consisted (at least primarily) of two pieces; an exterior "shell" and some interior hexagonal disk, which one could rotate. There was some sort of symbol (I think a number) on each corner of the hexagon and only one of these numbers were visible at the same time or at least spotlighted by the base. By turning the interior piece, one could change the number to I guess indicate some sort of strength or hp etc.

Here is a drawing that at least indicates what I am trying to describe:

The figures are collectibles, i.e. the game does not come with a fixed set of figures that each player has, but one buys some sort of packs/single figures. At least thats how it seemed to me.

The figures were in fantasy-style (some sort of beasts, dragons etc.)

It might be worth looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clix_(miniatures) and seeing I that jogs your memory.  What you're describing sounds like Clix but there are many versions.

@StartPlayer Yes, by now I am quite sure that the figures were using the clix system and by checking the various games using this system, it seems to me that mage knight fits the best. Since I cannot remember a single figure, I guess this is as far as I will get. Thanks for pointing out the clix system though. I was not aware of this being used for other games as well.

The first Clix game,Mage Knight by WizKids, seems very similar to your description, and it came out in 2000.


text:
Axis and Allies1940 Europe building facilities
Can a player build airfields or ports in a territory controlled by a friendly player.  I know you can not build factories, but for example can the American player build airfields in territories controlled by the British, as any friendly player is able to use airfield unlike a factory.

No. Rules, pg. 24:

Air bases can be built on any controlled territory or island.

("controlled" not "friendly")
and pg. 22:

Move the newly purchased units from the mobilization zone on the game board to eligible spaces you have controlled
since the start of your turn

Place new facilities in any territory that you have controlled
since the start of your turn.


text:
Identify an old apples to apples kind of card game
There is a card game from when I was young, around 1980 (could be even older). The game is in Finland, quite possibly translated to finnish from it's original language. Might also be a finnish game originally.
There are 2 kinds of cards: questions and answers (just like apples to apples). There are something like 50 cards total, every question has a "correct" answer pair, so there are equal amount of questions and answers.
When paired, the two cards have a drawn character's upper body on one card and legs on the other card. The full character represents a profession like a chef, fisherman, baker and so on. Mismatched pairs are weird, like a fisherman's rubber boots combined with baker's hat. In the same fashion, question/answer pairs are quite ordinary when paired correctly, but funny or absurd when mismatched.
Examples:
"Do you cry often?"
"Do you brush your teeth with dirt?"
"Only when I see you."
"Just like you do."
I can't remember the rules or the gameplay, I only remember going thru different pairings to see how funny answers there could be for a question.


text:
Why do we surround the corner in go?
After watching several tutorials, everyone says to surround the corners. I was wondering why you do this? If I start playing the corners, how do I combat white if they instead start to only develop in one area, like below, with white's plan being playing R-13, R-14, R-15, R-16, S-16, and T-16, and then forming eyes making it an unconquerable string, as shown with the highlighted pieces.
$$Bc
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 W W W -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W W W -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 2 -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ -----------------------------------------

I have a couple of questions from this:

Can I prevent white from making these strings, and how?
If the answer for 1 is yes, then will the game be just black repeatedly stopping white?
From 2, if that is also yes, then how do I take more territory so I can win?
Next, if white's move is bad, what can I do to use it to my advantage? How is it bad?

Please provide as detailed answers as possible, and possible game variations and mistakes from both sides, thanks in advance.

It's entirely a question of efficiency: It simply takes fewer stones to secure more territory if you play in the corner.
Taking, for example, the eleven stones White plays in your sample game, if Black had played the same number of stones in the corner instead:
$$Bc
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - X X . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O O O -
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O x x -
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O -
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O x x -
$$ - x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O -
$$ - X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

Same number of stones, same basic unkillable shape with guaranteed eyespace, but Black now has 7 points of territory surrounded compared to White's 4. For the same number of turns, this is definitely advantage Black.
Alternatively, if Black were to use the same shape to capture the same number of points in the corner:
$$Bc
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ - x x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - x x X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - X X X , . . . . . , . . . . . , O O O -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O x x -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O x x -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

That's 4 points each for Black and White, but Black only took eight turns whereas White took eleven. That means Black had three whole turns to go and do whatever to get even more points anywhere else on the board. Again: Advantage Black.
Can you prevent White from making these live shapes on the side? Maybe. Depending on how the game plays out, there's probably plenty of opportunity to disrupt it before it becomes unkillable. But the real question, the one you're not asking, is should you?
And the answer to that is…also maybe. The whole point of Go is to have more territory than your opponent at the end of the game. Sometimes that means killing their shapes so they can't get points, but sometimes that also means just letting them have their points while you try to make more points somewhere else. A score of 1-0 is just as much a win as a score of 100-99.
How aggressive or how passive you should be during a game really depends on the situation on the board, not to mention your own personal playstyle, and the question on when you should attack and when you should defend is pretty much the core of all Go strategy and far too complex to get into here.
But in general, if your opponent insists on spending more stones to secure less territory, you should be happy just taking the easy points somewhere else.

It is a question of efficiency. In this diagram, white has indeed made a live group, taking 11 moves to surround 4 points of territory. The black stones 3 and 5 make a loose but significant claim to 30 points or more. If black had been making similar moves with the other nine plays while what was building its little fortress, it would have  a much more secure and larger network in place. The prospect is for a sizable black win.
More specifically about corner play, in a corner the edges of the board surround a territory on two sides, leaving a player to build walls only along the other two. Along the edge, the board provides 1 side, leaving the player to form three sides. In the center, the player must form all four sides. Thus only half as many moves can claim equivalent territory in a corner compared to in the center. Also, an invasion of a corner is more easily squeezed against the edge, if players are of roughly equal skill.
Generally a god player starts by developing a loose network of stones, and as play progresses these get closer and tighter, with gaps filled in. The details vary widely, of course.

With the stones 32 and 5, how do I develop those corners? Should I try to connect them, or is it just a waste and should I just develop them independently?

@Quantalabs  Whple books have been written on that question, it is too big for a through answer here. In very broad terms, one must balance between filling in a network, making it denser and more secure, expanding it to include new unclaimed areas, attacking areas claimed by the other player that are not yet secure, and defending agasint such attacks by the other player.

The answers by goldPseudo and David Siegel say most of it.
I should just like to add these positions, namely three groups which can be expected to live unless White gets in a lot of moves very close around them before Black answers:
$$Bc
$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ - a a . . . . . . . . b b . . . . . . . -
$$ - a a . . . . . . . . b b . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . X . . . . . . X . . X . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . X . . X . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . c c . . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . , . c c . . , . . . . . , . . . -
$$ - . . . . X . . X . . . . . . . . . . . -
$$ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

The a group is a standard position, taking the corner by playing at the 3-3 point and the b group is also very common, usually referred to as a base. These are both essential building blocks in the early stage of sketching out positions. The c group, however is not a standard shape, and I have a much sketchier idea of when it is alive.
As in the previous examples, we see how much more efficient it is to make a safe group in the corner (1 move) as against the side (2) or centre (4?),


text:
Seafarers Pirate island - Am I OBLIGED to attack when reaching pirate fortress?
My ship route has arrived at the pirate fortress. The fortress still has it's full compliment of chits underneath.
The rules say I "can" attack but I don't want to right now. I want to wait till I have more warships.
Is that OK or must I attack as soon as I arrive?
Thanks.

As written in these rules (pdf) and these rules (plain html) (and as you note in your question), it's optional. And also note you can't attack "as soon as you arrive" but rather at the end of the turn (any turn in which your shipping route has reached the fortress that matches your color).

If your shipping route has reached the pirate fortress that matches your color, you can attack the pirates at the end of your turn

The original German agrees:

Sobald ein Spielermit seiner Schiffslinie die Piratenfestung seiner Farbe erreicht und somit die Schiffslinie
zwischen der Piratenfestung und seiner Küstensiedlung geschlossen hat, kann der Spieler die Piratenfestung
angreifen.

Which translates to
Once a player reaches the pirate fortress of his color with his trade route and thereby has completed the route between the pirate fortress and his coastal settlement, the player can attack the pirate fortress.

Thanks. "Optional" is what I thought but I have seen others who intepret "can" as "must".

These "others" are deviating far from the common usage of "can" and "must" in English (and kann and muß in German, for that matter). In the absence of a rulebook glossary overriding the standard English definition, well, we just use the standard English meanings.


text:
Can a deck be unfrozen by only using the top card
If the deck is frozen, I know it can only be unfrozen by having a natural pair from your hand and using the top card to meld.  My question is… if you only want the top card, do you have to take the whole deck and if you are able to only take the top card, is the deck now unfrozen, even if there is still a wild in it?

You can never pick up only the top card of the discard pile.
You always either pick up the entire discard pile, or draw from the regular draw pile. This does not change at all whether the pile is frozen or not. The pile being frozen makes it harder to pick up the discard pile, but it doesn't affect the fact that you can only pick up the entire pile.
From the rules:

When the players turn comes, a player is always entitled to draw the top card of the stock. Or, if the player wishes, they may instead (subject to restrictions under "Taking the Discard Pile") take the top card of the discard pile to use it in a meld; having done so, they must take the rest of the discard pile.

TAKING THE DISCARD PILE

Having taken and melded the top discard as described, the player takes the rest of the pile into their hand and may then meld some or all of the additional cards as they please.


text:
How to use Power Cards in Cluedo (David Walliams) Awful Auntie edition?
My kids were given this game as a Christmas present this year. I played Cluedo for years as a kid myself, but it did not include the Power Cards feature of this edition. The instructions have the following to say on these cards:

Power Cards
You will see that some spaces on the board have question marks on
them. If you land on a question mark you must take a Power Card from
the pile and read it out. There are seven Kinds of Power Cards, and
some will help you but some will hinder you. You must use the card on
the turn you collect it, unless it specifies otherwise.

That all seems fine until you actually read some of the cards. Example card:

Dessert Distractions
A towering pyramid of chocolate balls distracts you. You cannot make any suggestions this turn.

Given that you can only make suggestions while in a room, and the fact that all question marks on the board are on squares between rooms, if you must land on a question mark to take a Power Card, how could you make a suggestion on 'this turn' anyway (since you are not in a room)?
To try to make sense of it, we re-interpreted the phrase 'If you land on a question mark' to 'If you pass over a question mark'. The kids decided this was a great opportunity to pass as many power cards as possible, rather than make their way to actual rooms though, and sometimes they ended up with 3 power cards in a single turn! It got ridiculous.
Ultimately, I think we will have to augment the rules to limit players to one Power Card per turn, but if somebody knows the true intent behind the use of these cards, I would love to hear it!

Sound like you have it right: the card has no material effect and exists only due to a lack of care/playtesting.

This quote from the Power Card instructions:

You must use the card on the turn you collect it

might be open to an alternate interpretation.
Initially (same as you) I would read it as "the card affects you on this turn", but maybe instead it means:

You must play the card, targeting yourself or another player on the turn you collect it.

In the case of the Dessert Distractions Power Card, this means you could play the card against someone else, preventing them from making a suggestion on their next turn.
I'd be curious to know if the other cards worked well with this theory or not. Some will help you but some will hinder you suggests that the cards always target you, and the grammar of the quoted Power Card ('this turn') still seems clunky if it applies to another player's later turn.


text:
Trying to find specific children's horror-themed board game in book format
I'm trying to find this game I had as a kid.
It was a roughly A3-sized cardboard book that contained several spooky-themed game boards. Each page was a different board and theme. I can't remember exactly but I'm pretty sure there was vampires, ghosts, skeletons, graveyard, etc. They were very basic, snakes and ladders-type boards.
On the last page of the book, there was a spinner and there were cutouts on each of the other pages so you could access it. I don't remember there being any game pieces that came with it as it was just a book.
This would have been the late 1990s - early 2000s and I am from Australia so it could be limited to that region.
I can't find any reference to it or anything similar in a book format.
Please help!


text:
In the game "Sorry", what are the rules about getting Home from the safety zone?
If a pawn was in the safety zone, does the player have to pick up the card with the exact number of spaces to get Home? For example if the pawn was 5 spaces from Home, would the player have to get a 5 card, or could they draw a 3 and then a 2?

You can enter the safe zone, sure. And you can move forward in there even if you don't make it all the way to the home space. So if you're five spaces from Home, you could cover that distance with a 3 and then a 2, yes.
You need exact count to enter the home space.
The rules are explicit on this:
Rules (emphasis added):

Only you may enter your own color safety zone. All other rules apply.

and

You must bring all three of your pawns into home by exact count.


text:
If you use Two-For-One and destroy Rainbow Aura, can you also destroy a Unicorn card?
My friend and I were playing Unstable Unicorns this morning, and she had the upgrade card Rainbow Aura in her stable. Rainbow Aura says:

Your Unicorn cards cannot be destroyed.

I wanted to use the magic card Two-For-One, which allows you to:

SACRIFICE a card, then DESTROY 2 cards.

I chose Rainbow Aura to destroy, which was fine, but we disagreed on whether I could destroy one of her unicorns as well. I said that because I destroyed Rainbow Aura first, I could destroy one of her unicorns as the second card. She said I would have to pick a card that wasn’t a unicorn in her stable to destroy, because they were destroyed at the same time.
Who is right, and can I destroy her unicorn?

Seems you cannot. The effect is "DESTROY 2" rather than "DESTROY 1 and then DESTROY 1". The two destructions are simultaneous and the Rainbow Aura prevents you from destroying the unicorn.
Glossary:

Each destroy is a (destroy) effect that is performed as a single event up to the required number (which could be All). The required cards to be destroyed is determined simultaneously. You cannot choose the same Target for a destroy effect twice with the same destroy effect.

A no-longer-existing FAQ seems to have confirmed this case:

As with beginning-of-turn effects, a card’s effect happens all at once. While you can get rid of their Upgrade card, the change to their Stable will not apply until after your whole card has been resolved. Think of it like two missiles being launched at the same time. Just because one takes out a target doesn’t mean the other one can change trajectory and Destroy something that it couldn’t Destroy when it was launched!

This thread on BGG agrees:

I believe the destructions happen simultaneously as part of a single effect (you don't choose the order). Thus at the time of selecting the targets, you could not target the unicorn since the upgrade is still in play.


text:
Dominion: If a second supply pile is emptied while I am discarding for the Poacher, will I need to discard another card?
Suppose that I have a single empty supply pile. If I play Poacher, I will have to discard a card from my hand.
If I discard a Tunnel, I can reveal it to gain a gold.

Question: If I do so and thereby empty the gold pile, will I need to discard another card for the Poacher?

When is the number of empty supply piles evaluated? Only once before I start discarding, or again after each discarding?

You do the effects in order:

+1 card
+1 action
+1 coin
Discard a card per empty supply pile.

When you get to #4, you find that there's one empty supply pile, so you discard one card. The "Discard N Cards" effect means you discard all N cards all at once, not in sequence.
From the wiki:

If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to allow others to see all of them, just the one you put on top.

So in this case, discarding that one Tunnel will allow you to empty another supply pile, but you don't redo step 4.

You are right. The essential clue for me was that I discard all the card at once. This discussion might be different if we are talking about drawing cards instead of discarding, because it happens one after the other. But I have no card combo to discuss this on.

I'll edit my answer to emphasize that point.


text:
Dominion: do I have to show all cards that I discard due to Militia (contradicting sources)
Basically, my question is this: when I discard cards for Militia, do the other players have the right to see all the cards that I discard, or just the card that ends up on top of my discard pile.
I believe this comes down to the question whether the cards are discarded simultaneously or one after the other.
There are contradicting sources on this. The DominionStartegy Wiki page states

When attacked by Militia, you do not have to let players see all the cards you discard, just the one you leave on top of your discard pile.

However, the book Complete Rules for Dominion
and All Its Expansions v.7.0 on page 40 under "Discard down to x cards in hand" (explicitly including Militia) states

Discard cards from your hand, one at a time,
until you have x cards in your hand.

Are there some official words from Donald X. Vaccarino?

There has been a lot of discussion on this; with Donald X mentioning a potential change to the rules. Some can be found here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20160.50

And here http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10683.msg409672#msg409672

@GendoIkari, so what the consensus was, what are the current rules, and what Donald X may potentially change it to?

@AndrewSavinykh As far as I can tell, the most recent info is that Donald says the current rule is one at a time, with tentative plans to change it to all at once. That info is here, from Jan 2021: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15668.msg860424#msg860424

The official rulings on this have gone back and forth, but the current rule from the designer is that Militia causes you to discard one at a time, and thus your opponent would get to see all cards being discarded.
This has been a topic of discussion both at BGG and the Dominion Strategy Forums multiple times. Most recently the discussion has come up in regards with how to handle discarding Village Green (which lets you play it when you discard it), but the same discussion would affect whether your opponents are allowed to see all cards that have been discarded.
The most recent statement by Donald X I have been able to find is from November 2020, in which he says:

I still tentatively plan to change [Militia causes you to discard one at a time] to, discard all at once, then do the Village Greens.

Emphasis mine; he was considering making a rule change to discard all at once, but no decision had been made. In January 2021, in regards to whether he had made a decision, he stated:

It's not on my mind. I have no game night currently, etc.

In a BGG thread from 2016, Donald first stated

You discard the cards all at once, with only the ends-up-on-top card revealed

as the other answer quotes. However, shortly after in the same thread (2 months later), he corrected that:

Yes, sorry; Inn is "discard 2 cards at once" while Militia is "repeatedly discard 1 card until at 3."

In a 2014 thread on the Dominion Strategy Forums, Donald X discussed both interpretations:

Minion is "discards his hand." Militia is "discards down to 3 cards in hand." The question is, how does the process of "discard down to 3" work - it's specific to that phrasing. It seems to me like you keep discarding until you have 3. Tunnel could interrupt that because it does something when discarded.
It may feel like Militia is "calculate the number of cards in your hand minus 3, and if it's greater than zero, discard that many." It doesn't say that though.
As always very few people will see any ruling I make on this, and if I'm not contradicting a rulebook I would tend to like things to work how people who didn't think about it would play them. Maybe everyone is subtracting 3; it's hard to say.

Another slightly more recent ruling from Donald X:

Oh I see. I don't know what the online version does there either, but yes. One at a time for both [Monastery and Militia], except, maybe the interface can be friendlier for typical no-such-weirdness cases.

Finally, a couple threads with more discussion and information, but no other specific rulings to quote:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20160.0
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10683

No you don't have to. It is clearly in the rules:

"Discard a card" - Move a card from your hand to your discard pile.
• Sometimes a card will tell you to discard a card from another
location, but by default discarded cards come from hands.
• You place the discarded card on top of your discard pile, face up.
• If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to reveal them
all, just the one you put on top.

There is a thread on BGG about militia in which came to the same conclusion.

Sure, but the wording of Militia does not make it clear whether the discarding is all at once: "Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand."

@M.Rumpy I added a link to a BGG discussion. I agree it is vague, but I looks like the have the same conclusion.

Thank you. To emphasize, the BGG link properply answers the question because it contains the answer "You discard the cards all at once, with only the ends-up-on-top card revealed" from Donald X himself.

Donald has contradicted that in more recent discussions. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone linked him to that BGG thread at the time to remind him that he’d already ruled on it. See comments on the question for relevant links.

In that same BGG thread, you need to scroll down further to see where Donald X actually corrected himself: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1678764/article/24804068#24804068


text:
Strange old cards
I found some old cards when helping my Mum move house. They have multiple of the holo squares on them, all from the 1996 first edition. Are these misprints? Are they rare or valuable to a collector? I tried searching for cards like these online but i didn't see anything like them.

These are misprints, that doesn't mean they will automatically be valuable, but there's an even bigger problem.
Cards are printed on single large sheets and then cut afterwords. YuGiOh prints a little foil mark onto the bottom corner of every card at the end of printing. This is done by a single press transferring that foil from large preprinted foil sheets. In this case these cards most likely were on a sheet where the foil was printed 3 times, once in the correct place, once about two inches off to the left, and once more about a half inch to the right and a quarter inch lower.
As for the value of the cards - usually a misprint will be more valuable than the regular card, however the card info on these marks them as being from Structure Deck: Fury from the Deep - cards from preconstructed decks are usually less valuable than those pulled from packs, because of how easy it was to get those cards, you just had to buy the deck.
Looking at the specific cards, the only one that seemed to have value over $2 was Gravity Bind, however search brings up a second issue - these don't seem to be legitimate YuGiOh cards. The biggest problem there is with the card "SD4-EN014" which was always translated into English as "Creeping Doom Manta" when printed - though the original japanese was "Debiru". The wording in the text boxes are all wrong too. The colors of the inks are also off, lighter than they should be (originally I put that off to the photos). What it looks like is someone translated the Japanese text themselves and printed fake copies of the cards, without the same quality assurance meant to prevent misprints in legitimate copies. I believe these cards are not worth anything because of this, though I am not an expert.

Thanks for the detailled response, i don't really know yugioh cards, i did spot some other obvious fakes within the cards i found, so i guess these are just better fakes.


text:
Inquisitor's Flail with Trample and First Strike
This question is basically a variation on this one. Yesterday during a game I encountered a rather puzzling (for me) combat interaction involving Inquisitor's Flail.
Let's say I have a 3/3 trample first strike equipped with Inquisitor's Flail, and my opponent has a 3/3 of their own. I attack with my 3/3, and my opponent blocks.
I understand that if my creature didn't have first strike, I would assign 0 damage to defending player, since I have to assign lethal damage (=3) to the creature before the damage is doubled by the Flail (bringing it to 6).
Does first strike change this interaction in any way?

No, First Strike does not change this outcome. You will still deal 6 damage to the blocking creature and no damage to the defending player.
First/Double Strike only causes another combat damage step to occur, during which only creatures with First/Double Strike deal damage. This additional combat damage step works the same otherwise, in particular as far as damage assignment is concerned. You are still required to assign 3 damage to the blocking creature, which is then doubled to 6. First strike or not, there will be no damage left to be assigned to the defending player.
The only difference between your creature having first strike or not is whether or not it survives combat with another 3/3.

Probably worth quoting the trample rules that requires lethal damage to be assigned to all blockers before you can trample and then mentioning lethal damage = toughness of blockers


text:
In Spirit Island, do the actions on Power Cards resolve in the provided order only?
Spirit Island power cards often have more than one action listed on them.
For example, Pyroclastic Bombardment reads:

1 Damage to each [Town]/[City]/[Dahan].
1 Damage.
1 Damage to [Dahan].

On its own, it doesn't matter what order these effects resolve in. However, there are other cards for which this is not the case, and the order of the damage application could make a difference.
Are we supposed to resolve this from top to bottom, i.e. first line, then second, then third, or can we apply the effects of the card in any order?
Similarly, Share Secrets of Survival reads:

Each time [Dahan] would be Destroyed in target land, Destroy 2 fewer [Dahan]
~ OR ~
Gather up to 2 [Dahan].
If you have 3 [Air]: You may do both.

If one meets the 3 Air criterion, is it up to the player to decide what order the effects are applied in?

I have posted an answer, but for clarification, in what situation would you want to gather more before destruction?

In the rules for Power Cards under the section for Effects.

Perform effects in order, skipping any that cannot be followed.


text:
Why do the same as others in matchpoint bridge?
The following article about matchpoint tactics in bridge says that you should bid a game that you think everbody else will bid, even if you think the game most likely won't make. I have seen similar advice in other places to follow the field.
Why should this be the case? As I see it, if you do what everybody else does, then you are guaranteeing yourself an average score, at the expense of the chance to get a very good score. It seems to me that an over 50% chance of getting a top is better than a 100% chance of an average board.

In matchpoints, your score is based on how many people you got a better score than. Doesn’t matter what the score is - just is it better.
So if 10 pairs play a hand, and 8 bid the game; one bids part score; and you:

Bid the game: if it makes you get 5 points, if it goes down you get 4 points.
Bid the part score: if the game makes you get 0.5 points, if it goes down you get 8.5 points.

This assumes play is identical at all tables, only the bid matters.
This is to say, bidding the game is by far the safer choice: you’ll guarantee an average score. If you have some reason to believe you know better than everyone - sure, bid the part score. But if you’re unsure, the post is saying to go with the safer choice.
And to be clear - if you’re pretty sure it goes down, don’t bid it. Just be aware you’re going to either gain or lose a lot of points on the board. I think the advice in the article is probably a bit overstated - limits of space and time I suppose.
Most decent players get their 55% by bidding the safe choice consistently - if you get the par results on every hand, odds are you’ll finish near the top because everyone makes some mistakes.  Add to that some board or two where your bidding methods give you a particular advantage (maybe you play a particular defense to preempts or a particular overcall against NT that happens to work well on one or two hands) and you will score well.
But get that 0.5 and you would have a big hole to dig out from. Obviously the 8.5 would be nice - but get those on the hands you’re more confident on.

Thank you for your answer. So I guess my thinking was not completely of, it is not obvious from first principles that you should follow others.

When you bid differently from most of the other players, you increase your variance.  Being in a different contract than everyone else makes it more likely you will get a very good score, but also more likely that you will get a very bad score, while reducing your chance of getting an average-ish score.
Now, people who listen to bridge advice and read bridge books are not quite average players.  They are usually slightly better than average.  They are the kind of player who, if everyone was in the same contract all the time, would score 60%, because they are better declarers and better defenders than most players.
If you are this somewhat better than average player, then taking a chance on an unusual contract that is better 55% of the time is bad for you.  You score 100% if you are right, but 0% if you are wrong, so you average out to 55%, which is not as good as the 60% you would get being in the same contract as everyone else.
If you are even with or slightly worse than everyone else in the field, by all means take some calculated chances.  Ditto if you feel you've had a few unlucky boards and getting 60% the rest of the way won't get you to your goals for the event.

I'd agree with this in part (+1), but I think that it's a bit misleading to suggest that being worse than average means you should take more chances.  The problem is that if you're worse than average, you're probably worse at calculating good/bad risk, so taking more risks probably won't help overall. You'll look at that hand and say "probably not making, so let's take the "riskier" choice and not go in", and then everyone else will go in and make because they evaluate the hand better.

I like this; but feel you've missed a key point. Information is much scarcer during the bidding compared to the play, so luck lays a greater role in attempting to generate favourable swings. Stronger players are much better off playing for swing on defense and as declarer than during the bidding (of most hands). Making an overtrick (or even the "unmakeable game", as Barry Crane was want to do) nets the same top or average-plus with less risk.

As a player of uncommon systems (weak NT in a very strong NT environment, Strong Club systems in a standard/2 over 1 world) I agree with Alexander Woo (who likely won't be surprised).  However, variance is actually a very interesting topic at matchpoints.
Possibly the hardest part of matchpoints is working out what the contract really is when dummy comes down (and on defence, it's even harder).  120 vs 90, or 430 vs 420, is the same matchpoint as 1700 vs 620. Say the auction ended at 3NT.  But when dummy comes down, you realize that everyone's in 4H, and it's making.  So now you have to make 4NT, because 3NT= scores (almost) the same as 3NT-1.  Or you notice that if they had led a diamond instead of a heart, 3NT will go down; so now just taking 9 tricks, even if you have a chance for more, beats all the tables that got that diamond lead.  Or you realize that everyone's in 3NT, and everyone's making it, and it's a fight over the 10th and 11th trick for the matchpoints.
Variance, or "not going with the field", makes this harder, whether it's "in the room, partner is playing 3NT, did we get a good or a bad lead as a result?" or "our weak 1NT opener likely stopped them from bidding hearts, what does that mean?" or "our auction went 1NT-AP, the room is bidding 1D-1S; 2S - how many NT do I have to make to beat the players in spades?"
Variance is not necessarily good or bad; unless it's clearly inferior or superior, it doesn't change your mean score.  What it does is increase the deviation, and with each board in a 25-board session being worth 4% of your score, it can be a lot of increase!  When you get the day where your system means you're in 5 bad contracts, that no matter how well you play them are going to score badly, it doesn't matter if you're a 60% player in the field - you're still not breaking average.  When you get the day where your system nets you 5 good contracts (over the field), though, your 45% game becomes a 58% and you might win.
I played Precision at a National level (not that I am National level, but we liked the challenge!) for 5 years.  The worst thing  bar none, the times that caused the grey hairs, was when I knew the standard bidders were having a mindless "book" auction like 1NT-3NT, but our unusual auction showed us that the "book" contract was bad.  Do I back my system, knowing that 30% of the time the "bad" contract is right and I get a zero, and even when it's wrong, some will bring it home anyway and beat me; or do I go with the field knowing that 70% of the time it's a bad contract (and I'm not as likely to bring it home anyway as the National level players)?  Or worse, I'm at 3H, and I know there's a good chance at 6C, but if I go looking, I can't stop in NT any more.  I know the "book" auction won't find out about the slam potential, and they'll all be in 3NT.  I know that 3NT+1 (which likely will happen) beats 5C, or even 5C+1 when they don't find the setting lead to 6.  Do I try?  Or do I just bid 3NT with everyone else and "try to win the board in the play"?
On the other side, there's a strategy.  "Get to the field contract, and beat them in the play."  This is a low-variance strategy, and it works.  For the better card players in the field, minimizing variance in the auction - which, yes, includes "bidding bad games" that everyone else will bid - gives you field protection.  Your "bad contracts" will be 40% or so, not near-zeroes, and you still have a good chance at 65% if you play them one trick better than the field, even if it's -1 instead of -2.
But of course, for this to work, you actually do have to "beat them in the play".  If you're not the "better card players" in the field, then turning 5 or so of the 25 boards in a session into crapshoots means that on the day when they all go bad, sure your 45% becomes a 38%.  But when 4/5 of them work, that same 45% game is a 54, 55% game (frequently at the expense of the best players!)
As Alexander Woo says, many of the readers of bridge advice - and almost all the writers - are "better players" in the field.  So you would expect to see this strategy.  As I said, it's not wrong, for them!
What I will agree with the "strategy" people is "the best use of your time improving your game (in general) is play and defence.  It's not as much fun as playing with system, but it pays off more."  It doesn't matter if you're the best bidder in the world with the best system in the country if you can't make the great contracts you're in because you're only an average player.  And as everyone is discussing here, if you're one of the best players in the room, almost every hand has possibilities to get ahead of the field - even if you bid as badly as the rest of the field.
The question of course is then "why play a high-variance system at matchpoints?"  Well, frankly, most don't - they play the system they learned, basic or sophisticated as it comes, which is the same system almost everyone else plays.  This is even more so in the ACBL (the Hamilton Bridge Club is in the ACBL) than in other parts of the world.  Those that do:

it's the system they learned (in England, or Poland, or China, but now playing in Hamilton);
It's a system they're comfortable with (I just find 70% of auctions in a weak NT system easier than in standard) or better suited to their mental states (Strong club systems like Precision frequently are much more detailed than standard, so you're "on book" for longer before you have to use judgement; the cost being more memorization.  I'm someone who can memorize long series of tables - or recreate them from rules on the fly, sometimes - so for me, it's a win.  Most find this a tax on their memory, and are worse off).
it's fun to be weird, and present an unusual challenge to your opponents.  And most players, even the "better players", play bridge to have fun.  It's not like poker, where loose play costs actual cash.
they're tired of "normal" and just want to do something different sometimes (note that there are people who are exactly the opposite and "something different" is way too tiring!)
they're in a game where "second place is the first loser" and they're unlikely to win playing straight up.  Playing high-variance, they will likely do worse - but when everything goes right, they get 10% "for free" and their 52% average is a 62% win.

I think that "variance" is definitely good for weaker players when it's systemic variance - it's an important distinction between "variance because your system causes different results" and "variance because you guess that other people have it wrong".  The latter is probably net-negative unless you're a very skilled player (or at least a very skilled understander);  but systemic variance (caused by playing a totally different system may well be a net-positive in terms of 55%+ nights for many players who otherwise wouldn't have many.

Pluses and minuses.  Weaker players who don't understand "the normal" won't understand the systemic variance either, or how to analyze it.  So in addition to the variability, they won't maximize the pluses or know when they're behind and have to try something odd.  Basically, "systemic variance brings with it judgement variance" just because judgement comes in different places.  Also, maybe more 55%s, sure, but also more 37%s rather than the plodding 43, 44, 46 they'd get most of the time in standard.  Is the disillusionment of the downside covered by the upside thrill?

You hold Kxxx QJ Qxxx KQJ opposite a Precision good9-15 1S opener.  Do you downgrade and evaluate as a limit raise (whatever your system for showing a limit raise is)?  Is doing so judgement variance or systemic variance?

@AlexanderWoo: Really? What's the very worst hand partner can accept with? Perhaps QTxxx Kx KTx Axx or QTxxx AK KTx xxx? Do you really want to miss either of those games? A trump lead on either is unlikely to be found which means only a heart lead (from 4 or 5 headed by A in the first case or ten in the second) doesn't give you something. And those two hands really are close to pathologically bad, and still have decent plays. I was taught, and have profited from, that if the very worst hand partner might have still gives a play for the contract - it should be bid.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: Evaluate as a limit raise, so of course you'd be in game if partner has those hands and accepts the invitation.  The alternative is to evaluate that hand as a game force.

@AlexanderWoo: That's aggressive; I misunderstood. For me: Only in IMP's vulnerable.


text:
Identify game about ecology, earth & pollution with prisoner dilemma at the heart of the game
I'm searching for an old game, at least 25 years old, in which you play an industry nation and most of the time you loose against the game. At the heart of the game was a "prisoner dilemma". It think it was an international game, but maybe it was published only in Germany.
What I can remember about the game:

Each player led a nation. Each nation had 10 (?) fields.
In each round the players could choose to build a heavy polluting factory, a green factory and/or cleaning up pollution. Each factory was put on one field.
Your income was dependent on the number of factories you owned.
The player with the best industry won the game if (a big IF) Earth was still livable at the end of the game. If Earth wasn't livable anymore, the game won.
All factory pollution (of all nations) increased an overall counter of pollution. If the pollution counter moved above a threshold, X percent of Earth became uninhabitable. The nation fields were reduced by overall pollution. For example, if the overall pollution reached some threshold only 70% of Earth was still livable. Thus, all nations can only use 7 of 10 fields.
Unusable fields were marked with a pollution token.
Not all pollution was determined by overall pollution. A nation could be much more polluted than the overall pollution by bad luck and/or player actions.
The best strategy was to build many heavy polluting factories because they were much cheaper than the greener factories. If you built only green factories your income was too low to win the game. However, if all players built many heavy polluting industries this led to a barely habitable world early in the game. Eventually the game won, i.e. Earth was completely polluted.

I think the package was blue with a drawing of the Earth, but I'm not sure about this at all.

This sounds like a public goods game rather than a prisoner's dilemma

There doesn't seem to be anything really at all close to your description in the Climate Change theme on BGG, but just posting the link in case something there triggers your memory.

@Zags: Fair point. I agree, it's a public goods game.

It took me some hours googling, but finally I've got lucky! The name of the game is Vertigo.
I found it here. It was published 1990.
This is the cover of the game.

Oh, for flip's sake. This is in the Climate Change theme on BGG, I just failed to click on the "See All (27)" button and so only looked at the first six!

It could be CO2.  I haven't played this so I don't know if it ticks all the boxes on your list.  However it is a semi-coop game which means everyone is competing but if everyone does whatever will profit them most individually the game will end prematurely with everyone losing.  It has an environmental theme.
Here's the Boardgamegeek entry which gives an overview of the game play.
https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1350204/co and here's a picture of the cover, which is kind of round and a little blue so might be what you were thinking of.

CO₂ was released in 2012. While the original poster may have got their dates a bit wrong, it seems unlikely they would be out by 12+ years.


text:
Does sleep status and paralyze remove confuse?
Let's suppose I make the opponent's pokemon confuse, then after that I use an attack that would make it sleep, or paralyze, does it removes the confuse status? And if so, does it remove poison and burn too?

The "turn the card" special conditions are mutually exclusive (the most recent one applies), but the "place a counter" special conditions are not.
From the rulebook:

Removing Special Conditions

When a Pokémon evolves or moves to the Bench, it recovers from all Special Conditions. The only Special Conditions that prevent Pokémon from
retreating are Asleep and Paralyzed. Since Asleep, Confused, and Paralyzed all rotate the Pokémon card, whichever one happened last to the
Pokémon is the only one that is still in effect. Since Poisoned and Burned use markers, those don’t affect other Special Conditions. An unfortunate
Pokémon could be Burned, Paralyzed, and Poisoned all at the same time!

So yes, a Pokémon that is Paralyzed currently, and then I attack it with an attack that makes it Confused, would remove Paralysis and make it Confused instead; but it would not impact Burned or Poisoned.

Does it mean that, say, a paralyzed Spinda can cure their own paralysis by attacking with The Hula-la and making themselves confused?

No, because it can't attack if it's paralyzed (and paralysis goes away after the turn anyway).  You could do the opposite though, cure confusion with sleep or paralysis.


text:
How to glue to cardboard without warping or curling
I enjoy designing board games but have very little budget for it.  I usually begin with plain paper as I create the first prototype.  It is hard to use flimsy paper for a board game board and I want to create a cardboard-backed game board.  Ideally it will be free, or very inexpensive.
I have a cardboard, fold-up game board from an old Sorry set that I would like to repurpose for a new project.  I plan to print sheets of paper with the new game board image and then adhere them over the Sorry board.
Any time I've tried using cardboard and gluing paper to it, though, it curls up and warps as it dries.  How can I glue plain printer paper to a 18" square card board game board without it warping?  Is there a certain type of glue, or a gluing/drying technique that would help?

Do you have to use glue? Or would clear tape work?

Have you tried putting something heavy on it as it dries, to keep it flat?

When making small game components (for example, Settlers of Catan hexagons), I will often print my designs on full-sheet mailing labels, then stick them to foam board and cut them out.  Maybe you could use a few of these big labels stuck to your "Sorry" board.


text:
7 wonders rules about science in wonders
There's a rule in 7 wonders that science buildings that were used/sacrificed for building of wonders in your city are counted towards your total science points in the end of the game. That would mean you can build the same building but use resources required for building of wonder and retain the benefits in the end of the game. Is this the case or did i interpret something wrong?

Could you please quote the exact section of the rulebook you are referencing here? While I don't currently own a copy, I have played the game extensively and never encountered this rule, and it's certainly not something the (Android) app version does either.

No need. Checked the english version of rules and compared to the Croatian it makes sense. Sometimes translations may be more confusing.

I'd suggest adding that as an answer in case anyone else comes across this question; Stack Exchange explicitly encourages self-answered questions.

EDIT: The rulebook doesn't say what the Croatian translation may imply.
It specifies exactly the opposite:

2.b. Build a Stage of a Wonder
To build each stage of his or her Wonder, the player will use a card of their
choice as a construction marker:
To do that, the player must pay the price shown on the Wonder board and
not the one shown on the structure’s card.
The player then plays the card, face down, half hidden under the Wonder
board to show that this stage of their Wonder is now built.
The card then has no other effect, and is not considered to be a structure.

Thanks for input. The Croatian translation version which I have has a different wording than english and is somewhat confusing in this regard.


text:
Can i Attack an adjacent territory with troops from different territory
I must attack an adjacent territory.
Do I have to attack with troops from an adjacent territory, or can I use troops from a non adjacent territory?

As a new user I'd appreciate reasoning behind the downvote? I was playing risk with my kids and my 11 yr old had interpreted the rules this way. Let me know what I did wrong so I don't do it again? Thanks.

You attack from one territory into another. You may only use the troops in the territory you are attacking from in that attack.

Andrew is correct - you attack from one territory into another. From the official rules:

You must always have at least two armies in the territory you're
attacking from.

and

TO Attack. First announce both the territory you're attacking and the
one you're attacking from. Then roll the dice against the opponent who
occupies the opposing territory.

(emphasis mine)


text:
How can I use Tzaangors in my 40K Tcheentch army?
I like the Tzaangors models and would like to add them to my army, we are playing Warhammer 40k 9th edition.
The problem I'm having is the Tzaangors are not in the latest Chaos Daemons Codex (8th edition) and I don't know if they are restricted to the Age of Sigmar game or if they can be used in 40K and if they can be used in 40K - are they part of the Tzeentch faction or are they some other faction, like Thousand Sons?
Any clarification is appreciated.

Tzaangors are a part of the Thousand Sons faction. They aren't daemons in either 40k or AoS.
You can mix them with TZEENTCH daemons in one detachment, because TZEENTCH is a faction keyword, however they wouldn't get Objective Secured, as that requires the detachment be only THOUSAND SONS, nor would the Horrors get Objective Secured.
Alternatively, you could have one DAEMONS detachment, and one THOUSAND SONS detachment, keeping the detachment abilities. N.b. a THOUSAND SONS detachment has restrictions on how many BRAY units it can take, you would need some RUBRIC MARINES or SCARAB OCCULT TERMINATORS.


text:
How do you summon Daemons in 40k?
I bought the Chaos Daemon Tzeentch start collecting box and realized that other armies can summon daemons so I don't have to just play a Daemon army. But I don't know how that would work.
Lets say you are a Chaos Space Marine Army, under what circumstances can you summon a Daemon unit? What phase of combat would it happen and is there any downside?
For example, how could I summon Horrors of Tzeentch?

Do you have a copy of the Warhammer 40,000 Core Rules?

The rules for summoning are in Codex: Chaos Daemons

Any Choas Character can can summon Daemons that have the Daemon Ritual keyword. They can be summoned during the movement phase in place of taking a move action.
The downside is you cannot take a move action on that turn with the summoning character. But also and more importantly the summoning (in a match game) requires you to have available resources left (points).
To complete the summoning, roll 3D6 and you can place Daemon models whose power level are below the outcome of the dice roll.
Example of play; You have 50 points remaining for your army list. On your turn your Daemon Prince Character chooses to summon daemons.
You roll 3D6 and achieved a result of 9, you could summon a few Pink Horrors. The Daemon Prince cannot move on that turn because they summoned daemons in the movement phase rather than moving. And you must expend the points associated with the Pink Horrors or any other daemon models you table.

Is this specifically for Matched Play, and if so, how do the rules vary when playing a game with armies built using Power Levels?

@nick012000 i would add that info but i don’t know how power levels works.


text:
Do you surrender or split 8s against 9, X or A in Blackjack using Basic Strategy
I am confused about the standard basic strategy chart of Blackjack in the case of double 8s. Usually following basic strategy involves the following sequence of playing decisions in that order: One decides whether to surrender, wheter to split, wheter to double down, and whether to hit or stand.
Now assume a round where I am dealt two 8s and the dealer has a 9, X or A. Now I want to follow basic strategy to figure out what decision to make. We first consider whether to surrender, and since we are at 16 and the dealer has a 9, X or A the basic strategy chart tells me to surrender.
But is this right? I've heard the saying 'Always split aces and eights' a lot. Is this saying only applicable in games where surrender is not allowed? I would appreciate somebody clearing my confusion.

According to The Wizard of Odds, if you follow the basic strategy, you should Split 8's, with one exception: If the dealer hits on soft 17 and is showing an Ace, then you should Surrender.  The same strategy is presented on Wiki:Blackjack_Basic_strategy.

That's what I thought. But I am still confused as to why I seem to consistetnly find sources that suggest otherwise. For one I think this is wrongly stated in pages 31-33 in the book 'blackbelt in blackjack'. The same goes for this website. In both cases it is clearly stated that you check for surrender first, and that you are supposed to surrender a 16 vs a X for example

Could you confirm that e.g. the website I linked does indeed state the wrong choice, and that I'm neither overlooking something obvious nor going insane?

@johny If you only read that specific page of that website, then I could see how you could be misled.  However they teach about Surrender in the hard totals section.  The hard totals section,  comes after splits and soft totals.  If my memory serves correct you lose $43 on $100 if you split 8s vs the $50 you lose with Surrender.


text:
Forgetting to take a Vps card / settlement of road after purchasing in Catan
Good day all, hope ur doing well. A quick question since I never found anything in the rules of Catan. After a player purchased a Vps card/ road or settlement and forgets to take the card or item doest that mean I lose the purchase totally if the next round of die was played? Eg player A purchased a Vps card but forgot to take it and player B takes his turn does the Vps card fall away since the next round started?
Any help ?

Do you mean Development Card?

Does this answer your question? https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/39170/forgetting-to-place-a-city-on-the-board-or-to-move-the-robber-which-fix-is-acc

Your question is, at its core, "what to do when the rules are violated"? Ultimately, the rules in Catan (like most games) do not cover irregularities and so the answer is, at its core, "whatever your group can agree to" (or "whatever the tournament organizer says" if you're in a tournament).


text:
Quoridor jumps at the edge of the board

It's white's turn to move. The uppermost squares are at the edge of the board. In the first figure and second figure, which arrows are legal? If the upward arrow is illegal in the second figure, then if black's pawn and walls together block all the paths to the edge, is it illegal for black to place walls in that position?

from the rules here

When two pawns face each other on neighbouring squares which are not
separated by a fence, the player whose turn it is can jump the
opponent’s pawn (and place himself behind him), thus advancing an
extra square (fig.6). If there is a fence behind the said pawn, the
player can place his pawn to the left or the right of the other pawn
(fig.8 and 9)

So in example one the white player may not move ahead as that goes off the edge of the board.  If the white player wants to jump the black pawn they may move left of right
In your second example the black player with walls either side blocks access to that specific square they're are in.   I don't think they "block all the paths to the edge". As white can move backwards and go around to left or the right.
If it is possible for a player to reach the opposite side of the board, no matter how long the path, then they do not have all paths to the edge blocked.

In the second figure, as you said it isn't blocking all the paths, but what I meant was what if black already blocked all the left and right sides with horizontal walls.

Ah that wasn't clear to me from your picture.   I suppose it's not permanently blocked at eventually the player will run out of walls to place and be forced to move so it's probably ok.  However as the rule is 'an access to the goal line must always be left open' then maybe black was not able to build the wall in that situation.  the situation you describe does feel a very unlikely edge case though.

Yes it is very unlikely, and I agree that it would be ok to allow placing walls. I'm writing an AI for quoridor, and if the rule doesn't sufficiently clarify this matter I would allow placing for simpler implementation.

According to these rules, yes, you can jump to the side of a figure on the edge, but you cannot jump straight over (off the edge):

If an adjacent square is occupied by another pawn, a player can jump over the pawn. If the square in the direction of the jump is accessible (i.e., not blocked by a wall and within the boundaries or the board), this is the only possible place where to jump to. If the square is inaccessible, a player can perform an L-shaped jump by following the direction to the pawn and then moving left or right of the pawn, provided the respective squares are accessible.

This thread on BGG, also confirms.


text:
If an effect that triggers when a card is returned to the hand work when a card is returned to the extra deck?
The specific Scenario that prompted the question was dragonmaid downtime and House Dragon Maid on master duel, where downtime effect says "return[the 'Dragonmaid' monster] to the hand, and if you do, add 1 'Dragonmaid' card from your deck to you hand" when I choose House Dragonmaid she was returned to the extra deck but I wasn't granted a card from the deck

The extra deck is not the hand. Why would we expect it to be treated as such, in the absence of something saying it should be?

The reason I thought it would is because the effect says to "return it to the hand" and not "return it to the extra deck"

The effect is irrelevant both ways. 1: rules say a card from extra desk goes back to extra deck, and 2: it just did not go back to the hand at all.

As mentioned in comments, an extra deck monster cannot go to the hand or to the main deck. If such effect affect an extra deck monster, it is sent back to the extra deck instead by the rules.
Let's take the effect of "Dragonmaid Downtime" used in this scenario:

Return it to the hand, and if you do, add 1 "Dragonmaid" card from your Deck to your hand, except "Dragonmaid Downtime".

If you target "House Dragonmaid" with "Dragonmaid Downtime", the effect "Return it to the hand" will send it back to the extra deck instead. However, as it was sent to the extra deck and not to the hand, the next part "add 1 "Dragonmaid" card from your Deck to your hand" doesn't apply, as the card says "and if you do".


text:
Cribbage run question
Player one plays a one.  Player two plays a three .  player one plays a two.  Player two plays a three and says she has a run.  I disagree because the last three cards are 3 2 3.  What is correct?

According to Cribbage rules on pagat.com, you are correct.
Player one makes a run when playing the 2 after 1, 3, but player two doesn't make a run after playing the second 3 because 3, 2, 3 isn't a run.
Relevant rules passage quoted from pagat.com

A run or sequence is a set of 3 or more cards of consecutive ranks (irrespective of suit) - such as 9-10-jack or 2-3-4-5.

Another example: 4-2-3-4-3. The player of the first 3 scores 3 for the run 4-2-3. Then the player of the second 4 score 3 for the run 2-3-4. The player of the second 3 scores nothing because the 3 does not complete a run.


text:
What happens to allies in the additional ally slots if Rod of Animalism leaves play?
The Rod of Animalism says:

You have 2 additional ally slots, which can only be used to hold Creature assets.

If I have 3 allies in play, like one Beat Cop and two Guard dogs, and then Crypt Chill forces me to discard the Rod of Animalism that it's in play, what happens?
I will not have the two additional ally slots anymore, but does that mean that the ally assets in those slots do also leave?
The Slots rule says two things:

Slots limit the number of asset cards the investigator is permitted to have in play simultaneously.

If playing or gaining control of an asset would put an investigator above his or her slot limit for that type of asset, the investigator must choose and discard other assets under his or her control simultaneously with the new asset entering the slot.

I'm not sure if the check is only done at the time of playing or gaining control or that check must be done also at the moment the Rod of animalism leaves.

I got the following answer from reddit user ademre:
The FAQ section (taken from the official FAQ or FFG's responses to the official rules question form) for Bandolier says:

If you lose an asset that grants you additional slots, you must discard cards in excess of those slots until you have a legal number of assets in play in those slots. For example, if you had a Bandolier, a Shotgun and a Machete in play, and the bandolier was discarded, you would be forced to discard either the shotgun or the machete.

Slots are a constant restriction on the cards you can have in play, and something the game state constantly checks.


text:
Can I heal horror from an ally using Fearless?
Fearless says:

If this skill test is successful, heal 1 horror.

Does that mean that I can heal an ally too or it must from an investigator?

No, it can only heal your investigator not other assets or investigators. Heal targets your investigator unless the card text explicity say "from an investigator at your location", "from an Ally asset", "from any card" or something like that. If it just says "Heal X horror/damage" then it refers only to your investigator.
From the Official FFG FAQ v1.9 updated on June 2021:

If a card effect says to heal damage or horror but does not indicate from where, can I use to heal assets or investigators other than myself?
No. "Heal X damage/horror" is short hand for "Heal X damage/horror from your investigator. If a card simpley read "Heal X horror" or "Heal X damage," you can only use it to heal horror or damage from your investigator. Cards that allow to heal other investigators or asset will specify that.


text:
Are there any cards legal in Kamigawa Standard that would allow me to copy a legendary creature and keep the copy?
As the title says. I am playing in Standard format and am wanting to have two copies of a legendary creature on the battlefield at once. Is there any card that would legally allow me to do that? I'm in the Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty meta.

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Kamigawa+Neon+Dynasty/Mirror+Box#online

This is from the most recent set.

Echoing Equation from Strixhaven also works, albeit briefly

I would use a search like scryfall and search for the text Legendary and pick the format as Standard. It also includes the term "nonlegendary", but it certainly cuts down how many cards you'll need to evaluate.
Cards I found:
Delina, Wild Mage
Double Major
Echoing Equation


text:
Are converted mana cost and mana value the same thing?
Enthusiastic Mechanaut reduces the cost of artifact spells by 1 colorless mana. Jhoira, Ageless Innovator allows you to tap her, add 2 ingenuity counters to Jhoira, and put an artifact card with mana value less than or equal to the number of ingenuity counters on Jhoira. I'm looking for clarification on whether converted mana cost and mana value are the same thing. For example:
I have an untapped Jhoira, Ageless Innovator with no innovation counters on it and 1 Enthusiastic Mechanaut on the battlefield, and I have 1 Simian Simulacrum in my hand. Can I tap Jhoira, adding 2 ingenuity counters to it, and put Simian Simulacrum onto the battlefield from my hand? I see 2 likely options:

Mana value and mana cost are the same, so an Enthusiastic Mechanaut lowers Simian Simulacrum's cost (and therefore mana value) to 2 colorless mana. Therefore, a Jhoira with 2 ingenuity counters can successfully place the Simian Simulacrum directly onto the battlefield.
Mana value and mana cost aren't the same, so an Enthusiastic Mechanaut lowers Simian Simulacrum's cost to 2 colorless mana, but mana value stays the same. Therefore, a Jhoira with 2 ingenuity counters cannot successfully place the Simian Simulacrum directly onto the battlefield.

Most importantly, "mana cost" and "converted mana cost" aren't the same thing. Mana cost is something like 2R, while a card with that mana cost would have a converted mana cost (or "mana value") of 3.

The answer is neither of those: while "mana value" is simply the modern term for "converted mana cost", Enthusiastic Mechanaut doesn't change the mana value of your cards, it just lets you cast them more cheaply.  Note, for instance, that if you use Jhoira, Ageless Innovator's ability, you haven't cast anything; even when casting a cost-reduced spell, though, the mana value doesn't change.
The term "mana cost" is a different but related thing, which refers to the amount of mana (quantities and colors) printed in the top right of the card.  Once again, though, while Enthusiastic Mechanaut lets you pay less when you cast the spell, its mana cost, which is the printed value, hasn't changed.

I'm not sure what you mean about mana cost. "Mana cost" is a very well-defined term; it's the cost actually indicated on the top-right of the card. It's not affected by any discounts.

@Cadence: Good lord that’s embarrassing, I was so fixated on it not meaning CMC/MV I just… blanked on the actual meaning.


text:
Can I play catan-seafarers 5-6 player extension without the actual seafarers?
I have just bought the 5-6 player seafarers extension for catan and I also have the basic catan.
Can I play like this? or do I have to have the normal seafarers?

Which version of the expansion do you have? All of them should say exactly what you need on the back of the box. e.g. https://boardgamegeek.com/image/43110

Yes you need Seafarers to play the Seafarers 5-6 expansion as intended.
According to https://catanshop.com/catan-seafarers-5-6-player-extension

NOT a complete game! You need a CATAN® game (aka The Settlers of CATAN®), a CATANⓇ: 5-6 Player extension, and a CATANⓇ: Seafarers expansion in order to play with this game extension!

He also needs the catan 5-6 player extension

@Jungkook quoted in the answer: "... a CATANⓇ: 5-6 Player extension..."

@L.ScottJohnson in the quoted text it says that. But the answer itself says 'you need Seafarers' I think it's important to state explicitly that the 5-6 extension is also required.

@Jungkook This is being pedantic.  The question was asked if the base version of Seafarers was required.  The answer is yes.  The quote covers another options.

@LeppyR64 Indeed. Making this answer perfect as-is. Well done.


text:
How many different games of Go are actually played?
Go is known for having a vast space of possible board positions, which was one of the reasons why computers weren't able to compete for a long time.
I wonder how many of these board positions are actually used by humans. Go is absolutely deterministic, and it could seem reasonable for a person to always react to the same board position, in the same way, thus not exploring any new positions when the opponent does the same. Of course, one will try to explore new positions after losing a game to improve in the next round.
Still, humans often act the same in similar situations and are not good at doing something completely new. For example, humans usually cannot choose good passwords even when they try to avoid common mistakes that weaken passwords, so computer-generated passwords are way more random than what humans can come up with.
Are there any analyses about how many board positions are relevant, i.e., will be reached in many games, and what positions may never be reached because there is no way to reach them that would make any sense to the players? How many of the positions really matter when looking at the vast number of legal positions?

Awesome question!! Thanks for asking. Personally I'm not aware of any papers exploring this question. The total number of legal positions has been calculated exactly: Tromp, John. "The number of legal go positions." International Conference on Computers and Games. Springer, Cham, 2016.

One problem is the subjectivity of what makes sense to players, which depends heavily on their level. I also wonder if you want the number of positions reached by humans in actual play or the number considered during reading, which is actually rather fuzzy – but those are certainly positions that “matter”!

The number of positions reached in ❝many❞ games will be far smaller than that reached at least once. Even its logarithm will be much smaller.

I kind of disagree with the statement humans often act the same in similar situations. I know that my reaction to the same opening moves depends on my mood, what I ate earlier, the moon phase and the shoe size of my opponent modulo Pi. In other words, most players try to explore new moves and ideas at least some of the time. (I agree that humans suck at thinking of new passwords, but generating, say, 4 bits of entropy per digit when a true random source could generate 6, is still spanning a large space.)
The Tromp paper gives an upper bound. Naturally, this number will not (and cannot) ever be reached.
Practically speaking, the answer to how many positions are reached probably depends on the number of games played almost exclusively. I'm not aware of a proper scientific approximation, so I'm attempting an educated guess. Suppose there have been 100 million active players for 1000 years. Each player plays 30 games a day, and year has 333 days. Suppose each game lasts 200 moves, and half of them are uniquely new positions. That leaves us with 100,000,000 * 1,000 * 30 * 333 * 200/2 = 100,000,000,000,000,000 = 10^17 unique positions. Certainly more than one could ever hope to analyze.
Looking at it from another angle, in my experience there are usually only a handful (1 to 10 or so) options per move that seem worthy of consideration (*). The mode (most common value) is surely 1, i.e. there is only a single move as an option. The median (center of distribution) is probably around 2, and for the average I would guess around 3, but let's say just 2. So when playing a game, the number of reasonably reachable positions should be around 2 to the power of the move count. At 100 moves per game, that's around 10^36 positions.
The number of positions that is unlikely to be reached is the upper bound minus that, i.e. most of them.
(*) This is similar to what I (vaguely) recall about players in the game of chess and in other, more abstract situations (e.g. Newell & Simon, 1972: Human Problem Solving). It is also similar to the number of moves typically suggested by modern Go AI. A while ago I used this to losslessly compress the policy output of AI programs from 724 to just 8 bytes, which was required to keep large game trees in memory.

With that many games, the number of positions reached must depend on the number of games played. But one interesting point is the probability of a position being reached. If the probability distribution is not uniform, an AI with an oracle that can tell if a position is "relevant" would be able to skip a lot of computations. But such an AI would still need to consider every position above a certain probability threshold, even when it is unlikely that a specific position will ever be played.

@allo That is true and has been, in fact, the key problem in Go AIs.  The basic idea has been popularized a decade ago: Simply assign a weight to each possible next move and put more research effort into those moves it deems more likely to happen - this is "Monte Carlo Tree Search". The difficult question is, which moves are likely? That is more or less solved nowadays with modern "policy networks".

One thing are these methods and their estimates relying on heuristics, tree search, and more advanced AI methods to find likely paths. But one can also ask what the size of the set of all games, which are reached with a probability greater than p, is. For most thresholds, the set will contain games that will never be played, and for some thresholds, it will only have games that will most likely never be played. And while we don't know the sets, I wonder if there are estimates about the size of these sets.

As far as I know, there are no such estimates yet. I suppose you could derive them using the (trivial) math in the answer, but it of course would be an extremely rough estimate. It also depends entirely on the assumptions you want to make.

I keep it an open question here. Let's see what other answers the question gets. No need to wait for an definitive number, any approach and estimate or idea is interesting and your post already provided some interesting calculations as well.


text:
Dominion Feodum isn't a reaction-victory card. Why?
Feodum has clear text below the line separating its primary use from its secondary/reactionary use. Why isn't it a victory-reaction card for better use with courier, falconer,  etc.?

As ConMan said, the Reaction type was put on cards where the player is able to choose, within the trigger, whether or not to reveal and activate the Reaction

The designer of Dominion weighed in on this, as quoted in the DominionStrategy wiki article on Reaction cards:

The argument for not making when-trashed cards reactions - and not making when-gain cards reactions too, or giving them their own color - is that the card is involved. You know. You play Militia; Moat isn't involved, but I could use it. You play Venture; Tunnel and Patron are just going by, but they matter. You buy or trash Silk Merchant; it's right there, in on the action. So we don't need to call attention to it as much as we do Moat / Patron / etc.
-Donald X. Vaccarino

So in other words, the Reaction type was put on cards where the player is able to choose, within the trigger, whether or not to reveal and activate the Reaction. Once the player chooses to trash Feodum, they don't get to choose whether to gain Silvers, but if a player chooses to discard a Tunnel to a Militia they have the choice of whether to reveal it to gain a Gold.
While I don't have a direct quote handy, Donald has definitely discussed versions of "Why don't you make this design choice to make some other interaction work?" and he tends to prefer focusing on design choices that make that card better. So "add another type to the card so it works better with Courtier"1 hasn't been a strong driver for him.
1 I assume you meant Courtier, and not Courier, as the latter wouldn't care if Feodum were a Victory-Reaction compared to just Victory.

Designer knows best, but I'd also have noted that reaction effects are optional, e.g., "You may show this card to ..." or the like. whereas Feodum's effect is not optional. It is just a thing that triggers itself automatically when the card is burned.


text:
Can a trap card be activated after a monster is flipped face up?
In this example, I have an Elemental HERO Woodsman with 2000 DEF facedown, and a Compulsory Evacuation Device Trap Card facedown. If my opponent attacks with a monster that has 2100 ATK, would I be able to reveal my Elemental HERO Woodsman, then play Compulsory Evacuation Device in order to stop the attack from destroying my monster?

No, you can't.
Flipping of the monster happens during the damage step.
During the damage step, only 2 types of cards or effects can be activated:

Cards that change the atk or def value of a monster
Cards that negate the activation of a card or effect (simply negating the effect won't do)

Compulsory Evacuation Device falls under neither category, so cannot be activated at this point. If you want to use it, you'll have to do so before the damage step, and before you monster is flipped face up.
You can find the components of the damage step under this link:
https://img.yugioh-card.com/uk/gameplay/damage.html


text:
Paying for activated abilities of newly spoiled card Halo Fountain
Halo Fountain is a newly spoiled card for New Capenna:

Now say you turn Halo Fountain into a creature (there's a variety of methods to do this, say Karn, Silver Golem for example).
Say you wanted to activate its first ability. You pay W, tap it, then untap it. Does that work?
Alternatively, since you can pay costs in any order, can you pay W, untap it, then tap it?

Yes, because you can pay costs in any order, you can use an animated halo fountain itself as part of the untap tapped creature(s) costs. Untapping as a cost is rare, but this works the same way as sacrifice based additional costs have in the past.


text:
Boardgame similar to Talisman but with an end-boss
I recently played Talisman, revised 4th Edition, and it brought up some memories of a game that I played around 2010. The game belonged to the father of a friend of mine and was not new (if I had to make a guess I would say the game was from the 80s, but that might not be very accurate).
The game that I remember played very similar to Talisman. It was a fantasy themed RPG where each player played a different character, you could collect items to improve your character, there was an element of PvP and character death did not mean player death.
Yet, I there are some elements that are different between my memory and Talisman (at least the revised 4th Edition). First, Talisman plays in different regions, whereas the game that I remember was a dungeon with connected rooms. Second, in the game that I remember there was a distinct end-boss (if I recall correctly, it was a dragon) that you had to fight (or evade) to win the game. I remember killing the character of a friend but not taking up the item that would allow me to evade the end-boss only to loose my fight against it.
I have checked several alternatives to Talisman, but none seem to match my memory:

Relic is not in a fantasy setting
Prophecy does not match my memories at all
the board of Runebound looks much more complex than I remember
Dungeons & Dragons: The Fantasy Adventure Board Game also operates on a lower level than rooms or regions
Dungeon! has a board that looks like it could fit my memory, but it does not feature the end-boss that needs defeating

There are quite a few dungeon crawlers from the 80s, do you remember if minis were used, or other tokens to represent the characters?

Two important questions - was it a solid board, or tiles, and was there a Dungeon Master running the monsters, or were they automated?

@KMR, unfortunately I do not remember that.

@ArcanistLupus, it was a solid board, not tiled and there was no Dungeon Master.

@QueensKnight, do you remember if there was a guessing element or character sheets?

@KMR, no there was no guessing. Character sheets only in the sense that each player had a tableau or card with the stats of their character (tracking health, items and maybe abilities?).

The game that seems to match your description most closely is either the first or second edition of Talisman.
All three initial versions received expansions that may have transformed the game into the one you remember, but the third edition expansions also include modular board pieces, and a cardboard tower that is quite memorable.
When playing the First or Second edition a Dragon end boss can be added with Talisman Dragons released 1993, and the board can be changed to a more limited scope with the addition of either The Talisman Dungeon from 1987, or Talisman City from 1989.
There are also some home-brewed expansions that achieve a similar dungeon design to Dungeon!, but these would be somewhat dependent on location due to their pre-internet implementations.


text:
Cribbage- 3of a kind lands on 31- how many points?
When playing, player played a 3rd card for 6 points but also landed on 31.  How many points would they get?  6? 7? 8?

6 points for the third card of same rank.
2 points for finishing at 31.
8 points total.
Wikipedia Rules of cribbage says

If a card completes more than one scoring combination, then all combinations are scored.

and

Card combinations cannot span a reset.

They can, though, complete the sequence.


text:
In Uno, is there a penalty for playing out of turn?
Uno rules state that:

If a player plays a wrong card and it is noticed by any other player, he/she must take the card back and take two extra cards from the DRAW pile. Play continues with the next player in turn.

As I understand it, this penalty applies when a player plays a wrong card during HER turn. What about when a player plays a VALID card OUT of her turn because she thought it was her turn to play?
How do you interpret this penalty?

This irregularity of play is not covered by the rules. It's up to your group  to make a judgment/correction. The most obvious correction is to just have them pick up the played-out-of-turn card and continue. But if your group agrees, imposing the stock penalty of "and draw two cards" to every irregularity is also fine.
Note also the stock rules at https://www.unorules.com/ don't include any rules for handling any misplays.

So, in your opinion, the rule I quoted above was only meant for players playing a wrong card during their turn, not for players who play a card out of turn?

Indeed. The wording clearly assumes it is the player's turn. "wrong card" not "wrong order". Also, the "play continues with the next player in turn" would skip some innocent bystander if the quoted rule were applied to out-of-order plays.

The logical extension of a "stock penalty for every irregularity" with the base rules of Uno is the game Mao